Started By
Message

re: If this was about tariffs, why was Switzerland targeted?

Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:46 am to
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
79271 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:46 am to
quote:

Large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits are caused in substantial part by a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships. This situation is evidenced by disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers that make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to sell their products in foreign markets.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:47 am to
You posted a quote with no cite
Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
175703 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:48 am to
quote:

Then the stated reciprocity is a bold faced lie



Any rational person can understand why we had to make sure and close all possible loopholes for this to work.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:49 am to
quote:

Any rational person can understand why we had to make sure and close all possible loopholes for this to work.


But my point remains

This isn't about reciprocity or tariffs

Those were lies
Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
175703 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:54 am to
quote:

But my point remains

This isn't about reciprocity or tariffs

Those were lies



It still is reciprocity, just with closed possible loopholes.

Also, you forget that Trump 1 labeled Switzerland a currency manipulator and the tariffs are also about ending currency manipulation.

quote:

The U.S. Treasury labeled Switzerland a currency manipulator in December 2020, arguing that the Swiss National Bank (SNB) was intervening in currency markets to keep the Swiss franc weak against the U.S. dollar. A weaker franc makes Swiss exports cheaper, benefiting their economy but potentially harming U.S. trade interests.


Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
20261 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:54 am to
Moreover, if this is about parity and reciprocity of trade, how the frick are some of these countries supposed to achieve that? Americans buy more Rolexes from the Swiss and clothes from Bangladesh than the Swiss and Bangladeshis buy Chevrolets and machinery. Are we expecting Laos to import John Deeres or we'll keep tariffs on them forever?
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
25300 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:54 am to
quote:

Any rational person can understand why we had to make sure and close all possible loopholes for this to work.


Then they should say it that way.
Posted by SDVTiger
Cabo San Lucas
Member since Nov 2011
87359 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:56 am to
quote:

Then they should say it that way.


Do you have to cry about everything?
Posted by Paddyshack
Land of the Free
Member since Sep 2015
10726 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:58 am to
quote:

There theoretically can be a relation

It’s not “theoretical”

I’ll take your response as a reluctant “yes” because of course you can’t give a straight answer
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
79271 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 7:59 am to
quote:

You posted a quote with no cite



Prolonged trade deficits weaken our currency.


One way to mitigate it is with higher interest rates.



These are facts brother.
Posted by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
14513 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:00 am to
Japan has low tariffs on American products but have restrictions that make it highly expensive if at all to sell into their country. Where they get us is in Services fees that suddenly charge a premium. A tariff by another name is still a tariff. Switzerland is not much different
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:01 am to
quote:

It still is reciprocity, just with closed possible loopholes.

Then it's not reciprocity. Reciprocity requires the existence of something to respond to. Shifting to "loopholes" for those countries without something to respond to means a shift in rhetoric.

quote:

Trump 1 labeled Switzerland a currency manipulator

Again, has nothing to do with tariffs.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:02 am to
quote:

if this is about parity and reciprocity of trade, how the frick are some of these countries supposed to achieve that?

It's impossible for poorer countries to make up for the trade imbalance, which is the largest flaw in this strategy at the micro level.

We're effectively punishing countries who are not engaged in the tariff behaviors claimed for a macro strategy, which is specifically not what we were told was the plan.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:04 am to
quote:

I’ll take your response as a reluctant “yes”

It's not. I said what I said (which is correct)

Trade deficits have much more important variables that determine the amount of the deficit. Currency and economic strength are the 2 largest factors, IIRC.

Poor countries and countries with weaker currency will have more exports to richer countries with stronger currencies.
Posted by Flats
Member since Jul 2019
25300 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:04 am to
quote:

is it your contention that tariffs and trade deficits are unrelated?



They're related but they're not dependent. A country can have a trade deficit with zero tariffs involved.

Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
21462 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:05 am to
quote:

Because what the Administration is telling the American people are “tariffs” by other countries are not tariffs at all. They are using the term “tariff” in place of a completely different circumstance, hoping that Americans are too stupid about these things to notice. Trump is peddling nonsense.


This post is nonsense. It does not make sense, try harder or stop talking.

Trump seems to understand what most Americans (or just people worldwide) do not - modern taxation policy is about influencing behaviors, not collecting revenue. The democrats successfully changed this narrative by normalizing individual taxation in the name of punishing the rich, which is of course a political strategy of labeling winners and losers. We have indeed gotten quite used to these narratives. But framing every taxation policy this way for decades has left us with not enough revenue to pay for our spending - a very real and easily understood problem for any entity that wishes to grow its revenues. Prioritized Individual taxation policy inherently limits tax base, whereas taxation at the industrial or even global level can alter the tax base in a compounded manner. Actual policy still focuses on businesses, but it’s the emotional draw of who is paying their “fair share” that allows ill-informed and self serving opinions to enter the conversation.

The fact is, a taxing authority benefits far more from increasing transaction volume than it does strictly with revenue collection, as the latter is dependent on the former. We have way too many people with limited understanding weighing in on this, these people are only capable of assessing this policy based on who is mad about it. There are still millions of people that think we can solve our problems by forcing the “rich” to pay their fair share, ignoring they have 50% chance of not paying any taxes at all.

We are investing in the rest of the world more than any other nation, and piling up debt in the process. That’s not a winning formula for anyone involved.

Switzerland is nothing like the US, they have generated and preserved wealth like very few other countries by prioritizing their best interests. They are frankly (hehe) lucky they have anything to trade at all as a landlocked country in the mountains.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:05 am to
quote:

These are facts brother.

Which economist/academic work are you citing to make the claim?
Posted by Paddyshack
Land of the Free
Member since Sep 2015
10726 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:07 am to
quote:

They're related

Right.
quote:

they're not dependent

I never suggested that they were and that wasn’t the question
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
451267 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:07 am to
quote:

We are investing in the rest of the world more than any other nation, and piling up debt in the process.

You sound like you're conflating trade imbalance with public debt.

quote:

There are still millions of people that think we can solve our problems by forcing the “rich” to pay their fair share,

This is an argument oft made by MAGA-types in support of the tariffs.

Posted by oklahogjr
Gold Membership
Member since Jan 2010
39461 posts
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:09 am to
quote:

Prolonged trade deficits hurt our currency.


Isn't the whole point of Trump's economic shift to weaken the dollar and move us back to manufacturing economy?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram