- 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: If this was about tariffs, why was Switzerland targeted?
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:29 am to stout
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:29 am to stout
quote:
While the tariffing penguin memes are funny, the left really thinks they had something on how dumb Trump is for putting tariffs on uninhabited islands.
It's objectively stupid just as the entire rollout has been
1
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:30 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Again, we do not have to pay back trade deficits.
Even using fiat money and the "reserve currency", a nation can't perpetually consume more than it produces, and it can't perpetually spend more than it earns. The result will always be currency destruction in the end. We don't have to pay back the trade deficits, but they will end one way or the other, the other being dollar and economic collapse.
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 8:33 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:31 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote Penrod: Tariffs are a way to get revenue that is only partially paid by our own citizens.
quote:
So become dependent on revenue from imports? I thought were shooting to reduce imports and MAGA?
Well, as I understand it, the goal is not to become dependent on revenue from imports, it is to stimulate business/jobs in the US.
I'm not certain this is the best way to go about it, but clearly, it is not a level playing field with some of these countries that have far more lax environmental and worker safety regs and/or tariffs or other trade restrictions on US goods.
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 8:36 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:32 am to TBoy
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.
Wut
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:32 am to Flats
Is....is this board mixing up the budget deficit with the idea of international trade deficits?
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:37 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Is....is this board mixing up the budget deficit with the idea of international trade deficits?
A better description is that they're being good NPCS repeating silly talking points so that other NPCs believe it and repeat it.
But yes, they're trying to force a direct relationship between trade deficits with federal budget deficits. And it's as dumb as you'd imagine.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:37 am to Flats
quote:
That's the 3rd or 4th time I've seen that bizarro claim.
The concept of fiat money is very hard for people to understand. If we traded in hard currency it would be easier to grasp; if more money goes out than comes in, you eventually run out of money. With fiat, we can increase the supply of money to meet our external needs, and it seems like a free lunch, but it comes with a cost of devaluatiion and eventually lack of confidence in your currency by trading partners. We may already be there.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:37 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Is....is this board mixing up the budget deficit with the idea of international trade deficits?
Sort of. The claim is that if we spend 10k on goods from Panama and Panama spends 5k then we're out 5k and eventually we run out of money.
I wish I was joking.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:38 am to Flats
quote:
Sort of. The claim is that if we spend 10k on goods from Panama and Panama spends 5k then we're out 5k and eventually we run out of money.
If we had that 5k we could tax it and make up our budget deficits
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:42 am to Powerman
quote:
It's objectively stupid just as the entire rollout has been
Says the oilfield safety man
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:42 am to Flats
quote:
Sort of. The claim is that if we spend 10k on goods from Panama and Panama spends 5k then we're out 5k and eventually we run out of money.
I wish I was joking.
It just clicked for me that that's what they're arguing. In my head I was like ok, yeah tariffs are going to generate revenue on imports, but they're on a whole other page. I'm gonna step back from this one in that case
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:45 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Switzerland abolished all industrial tariffs as of 1 January 2024.
What convenient timing. Maybe the tariffs are related to what was going on before that date? Maybe they need to pay a bit of a penalty for their previous actions.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:45 am to Ingeniero
From my earlier post:
If you look at the numbers, it's clear that that first column is simply our trade deficit (examples were given in other threads). They should have just stated that, this has caused needless confusion. I'm not defending the use of deficits in this case either, but they should have called it what it is.
quote:
well, here is their explanation:
https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/reciprocal-tariff-calculations
While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero. If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.
If you look at the numbers, it's clear that that first column is simply our trade deficit (examples were given in other threads). They should have just stated that, this has caused needless confusion. I'm not defending the use of deficits in this case either, but they should have called it what it is.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:46 am to MidWestGuy
quote:
but they should have called it what it is.
The problem, as sad as this is, is that it didn't fit with the talking points (which have been focused on "tariffs" since 2016)
Posted on 4/4/25 at 8:53 am to CastleBravo
quote:
The chart was good.
Very clear.
Under the column entitled "Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A." it had ZERO figures that matched "Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A." despite all the explanations. Why even use that title?
I hate how Dems have changed language to meet their purposes (see definition of "vaccine"). I hate to see Trump 2.0 engage in the same word games. It undermines trust and is disrespectful to citizens.
This post was edited on 4/4/25 at 8:55 am
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:05 am to Ingeniero
quote:
So to restate my thread title, where did the 61% "tariff" on this chart come from if this is actually about tariffs on US imports?
The Trump admin released their formula yesterday. It was based on tariffs and trade imbalances. The formula provided perfectly aligned with the calculations provided. I saw it on a show that airs at 10am, so the information has been out there the entire time.
So, in reality, what people have been melting down over for an entire day is... a poorly labeled chart. That's pathetic.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:09 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
So, in reality, what people have been melting down over for an entire day is... a poorly labeled chart.
That is just one aspect of it.
As posted above, it's more leftist bullshite from the admin, trying to redefine words.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:10 am to IvoryBillMatt
I understand your desire for some pedantic gotchya.
Not interested.
Not interested.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:19 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Under the column entitled "Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A." it had ZERO figures that matched "Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A." despite all the explanations. Why even use that title?
Because the Administration is misrepresenting (lying) to their uninformed base to get the right wingers to believe the false assertion that all those other countries have imposed tariffs against American goods. The entire message depends upon Trump supporters to be unquestioningly loyal and gullible.
And by the comments in this thread, it’s clear that Trump has correctly estimated the ignorance of his supporters.
Republicans should be embarrassed and offended that Trump is doing this.
Posted on 4/4/25 at 9:20 am to SDVTiger
quote:
They was have on average a 30% tariff on out Ag Not sure why they or you are confused
Correct. Plus they impose a maze of non tariff trade restrictions that are more impactful than tariffs in many cases. See page 330 of this USTR report.
USTR Report
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News