Some Tariff Related Content
Spoiler alert: This is going to be a disaster
If things go as expected, later today, President Trump will be unilaterally enacting a huge regressive tax increase on the American public. I realize that some galaxy brains will claim that other countries pay for tariffs–not American citizens. This is, off course, utter bullshit. But you don’t need to take my word for it. Here is a noted economist on the topic:
Tariffs are taxes on imports which serve to raise the prices of those imports, and thus enable domestic producers to charge higher prices for competing products than they could in the face of cheaper foreign competition. . . .
Sometimes this approach is buttressed by claims that this or that foreign country is being “unfair” in its restrictions on imports from the United States. But the sad fact is that virtually all countries impose “unfair” restrictions on imports, usually in response to internal special interests. However, here as elsewhere, choices can only be made among alternatives actually available. Other countries’ restrictions deprive both them and us of some of the benefits of international trade. If we do the same in response, it will deprive both of us of still more benefits. If we let them “get away with it,” this will minimize the losses of both sides. [Source]
That is a quote from Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by famed conservative economist Thomas Sowell (who knew he wrote on more than the failures of academia and black culture). An earlier National Review article excerpted several portions of the work relevant to tariffs.
Now I realize that some readers must be thinking: “But something needs to be done with China, and therefore we should impose tariffs as a radical solution. The fact is we know what the economic impact of this will most likely be–because Trump has already done it. Again, I’ll go back to Sowell, this time from a Reason interview:
Thoughts on the Trump trade war?
Oh my gosh, an utter disaster. I happen to believe that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs had more to do with setting off the great depression of the ’30s than the stock market crash. Unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months that followed the crash of October 1929, but it hit double digits within six months of passage of Smoot-Hawley, and stayed there for a decade.
What about the view by President Trump that other countries are ripping us off by running trade surpluses?
It’s pathetic. The very phrase “trade surpluses” gives half a story. There are countries that supply mainly goods, physical goods, and there are other things like services that other countries provide, and the United States gets a lot of money from providing services. To talk about one part of the trading and ignore the other part fails to understand that money is money no matter whether it’s from goods or services.
When you set off a trade war, like any other war, you have no idea how that’s going to end. You’re going to be blindsided by all kinds of consequences. You do not make America great again by raising the price to Americans, which is what a tariff does. [source]
Then there’s always this guy, who also had strong thoughts on tariffs:
All this matters because, by most estimates, the tariffs that are about to be enacted will represent the largest peacetime tax increase in American history–to the tune of $600 billion a year on the American People. That is, unless you are Peter Navaro who claims that tariffs are actually a tax cut. It’s good to know that Professor Sowell would most likely fail one of the President’s current economic advisors. Estimates put the impact on average households as high as $3,400:
In the analysis released by the policy research center this week, the group found that a 20-percent tariff on all imports would bring the average effective U.S. tariff rate to the highest since 1872 when stacked together with the other tariffs that have taken effect in recent months.
Researchers said the proposal would increase prices somewhere between 2.1 percent and 2.6 percent, depending on how other countries retaliate to Trump’s new tariffs and the Federal Reserve’s response.
“This is equivalent to a loss of purchasing power of $3,400-4,200 per household on average in 2024 dollars,” the group said. [source]
That’s before we get to the other economic challenges these tariffs create. For that, I’ll turn to Rand Paul (one of the few Republicans willing to publicly admit that this is a tax increase that is being enacted without the Constitutionally required Congressional consent):
“I haven’t had a single business person or individual in my state come up to me and say the tariffs are a good idea,” says Paul. … “I have had people come up—farmers which are a big presence in our state—and say they export 20 to 25 percent of their products and this will hurt them,” says Paul. “They are still suffering from some of the tariffs and retaliation from 2018 and 2019, when the previous Trump administration did tariffs,” Paul said. “I have home builders and real estate brokers who say if the price of lumber goes up, if the price of steel goes up, the prices of homes will go up and we’ll sell less homes. I have the bourbon distillers coming to me, which is a big industry in my state, and they say due to the retaliation that Europe is placing on us and Canada is placing on our bourbon, we will export less bourbon. We have shippers in our state, people who ship internationally as well as across the U.S.” [source]
Paul’s point about farmers is an important one, as during the last Trump Administration, the government had to “bail out” farmers to help them survive the self-inflicted wounds of the last trade war. To my knowledge, there have been no budget provisions made for the current budget and tax plan working its way through Congress to create a similar fund proactively. That forward planning failure seems kind of important if we let history be our guide. That’s before we get to how the budget’s tax cuts are primarily based on shifting tax burdens onto these tariffs.
Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would decrease federal tax revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 through 2034. Long-run GDP would be 1.1 percent higher, offsetting $710 billion, or 16 percent, of the revenue losses. Long-run GNP (a measure of American incomes) would only rise by 0.4 percent, as some of the benefits of the tax cuts and larger economy go to foreigners in the form of higher interest payments on the debt. [Source]
To me, at least, (not to mention most economists and trade experts) this has the makings of an unmitigated disaster for the country. And, unlike some things the President has done since being elected, this is a case where he promised to do this throughout the campaign. And frankly the rationalization that “we have to do something about our trade deficit and debt and at least this is something” is akin to a surgeon suggesting the best way to deal with brain cancer is just to remove the head altogether.
[Addendum] I forgot to mention that one tariff that the President has already announced is that he’s apparently putting a tariff on illegal Fentanyl. I’m not entirely sure how he plans to collect said tariffs, but it’s a bold plan.
Now tie the Figure 2 chart above to one that addresses the distribution of the tax cuts that are just distributed in the opposite direction and you’ll see that tariff tax increases on the working classes are there to decrease the taxes of the wealthy. Surely there are politicians who can use that info to totally beat the crap out of Trump and his cronies.
The most optimistic thing I’ve been hearing on the right is “maybe he’s just going to use them as a bargaining chip”. Tier 2 is “maybe they won’t be as bad as they look”. No one I follow is in praise of the plan.
@Fortune:
I’m genuinely curious about where you net out on them. Reading a comment like that seems to indicate you are not in favor of this tariff plan, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
I regard Tom Friedman as past his Best By date, but he does have a good, and really scary, column at NYT today (gift link). He visited the Huawei tech center in Shanghai. They built it, with government support, in three years after Biden cut off access to high tech chips. Scroll down to the picture. No caption, but apparently it is a pic of the tech center. Which building, you ask? All of them. Trump is cutting R&D funding, eating the seed corn. China seems to be taking a somewhat different approach.
I think I’ll suggest our grandson learn Mandarin.
@Matt Bernius: I’m very worried.
This is all so very, deeply stupid. An utterly self-inflicted wound, if it actually comes to pass.
When are the tariffs on European wines supposed to start, or are those still in the threat phase? I need to go pick up a few bottles of my preferred tipples before the prices go up.
This is a point I haven’t heard made often enough. Not only do the tariffs raise the prices of imported goods. they ALSO raise the prices of domestically-produced goods, because the higher prices of imports raise the price ceiling for the entire market for those goods, whether imported or domestic. So the additional burden on the American consumer isn’t only the higher cost of the imports, it’s also the price hikes domestic producers will impose.
I’d say there’s a major shitstorm on the horizon, and the horizon is now.
@Fortune:
Me too.
Especially when you combine this with Trump and Musk’s gutting of our Federal Government and social safety net, a recession, stagflation, or a full-on depression, will have catastrophic short and long-term impacts for the US and many, many Americans (including a LOT of Trump voters).
@Mikey:
BTW, that’s before we get to the point that if tariffs impact material costs, the price of locally manufactured goods ALSO need to rise to make up for manufacturing losses. I know from previous work in a huge company that was involved in manufacturing how, at scale, a shift of a few cents can completely blow up pricing models.
Social safety net?
Matt
Like fortune, I’m worried. But you have presented a one sided argument. Who speaks for the people and communities devastated by EU China etc mercantilist policies. Do they not count? What are the costs? Just so you can buy an IPhone cheaper? And now I’m lead to believe that elimination of just 1 government job is an existential threat to the state.
How about some sober pros and cons analysis. Not just carefully crafted essays simply designed to criticize Trump.
No one wants to deal with a cold hard reality. We are going bankrupt. Despite Doge, the next US budget calls for a 7% increase in spending.
Cmon man.
@Connor:
First, I think there is a discussion to have about tariffs on China–though far more subtle than this same old song and dance you keep presenting. I also will say that people who are hawkish on China also are against these tariffs because they don’t really address the China issue in any meaningful way.
However, I’ll also point out that you always hone your comments in on China and negate all the other countries Trump is imposing wide ranging tariffs on. Funny that. I wonder why that’s the case? Cmon man.
Hell, Trump is currently breaking the entire beautiful Trade agreement he createad with Mexico and Canada.
But hey, kudos for thinking you have a better perspective on the economic impact of all this than Thomas Sowell–who I’ll note you have suggested we read when you posted under Jack, Drew, Guaraldi, and others. Though, usually that had to do with his views on race. I’ve been repeatly told by you and JKB among other’s Sowell is a mind to be taken seriously.
But then again, I’m not particularly interested in empty critiques of my (and out other hosts) intellectual integrity from an emotionally unstable know-it-all who keeps getting banned and creating new user names in order to keep pretending he’s different people and show the world how he clutches his pearls at others who dare to disagree with him.
Further, I’m not going to be lectured about being evenhanded from someone who has routinely posted stuff like “Trump isn’t a racist… Obama was the real racist.”
That said, thank god you’re not a surgeon because you clearly are a fan of cut off the head to cure brain cancer. I look forward to you eventually pretending (during your next persona) that you never supported Trump when he crashes the economy.
Also, “cmon” is one of your very tired ticks/tells that you know you don’t have a real fact based argument. It’s cute that you don’t even have enough self awareness to realize that.
@Fortune:
Completely the case. There are three major components to the social safety net: the funding, the policies, and then the people to implement. The budget is going to restrict the first (something that Musk in particular is a huge proponent of), legislation is revising the second (pushing for more arduous requirements and more need for agency vetting–that in turn requires personnel at the federal level), and then DOGE has been taking care of the third at the Federal level.
As someone with a lot of experience in this area, the across the board cuts at agencies are going to make it harder for people to access the benefits they received directly from the feds. Additionally, as many of the benefits and policies start at the Fed and are disbursed into the States for things like SNAP, the cuts and policy changes are going to create huge headaches at both levels which are also going to result in more people waiting longer for benefits and having issues with renewing them.
We know from 2020 and COVID how badly the Social Safety Net performed when it was stress tested by a major economic downturn. Trump just gutted the infrastructure necessary to help alleviate what happens during the next major downturn. That includes losing a TON of institutional knowledge about how they cut through a lot of the red tape just five years ago.
People are about to learn all the this that the government did that they didn’t realize that it did–especially for people who find themselves in a vulnerable position.
The one blessing is that, if this goes as poorly as many worry, this will be much more slow moving than COVID. So there will be more ramp up time.
Of course, the other thing to note is that this is assuming that the only major catastrophe of the next few years with be just the fallout from the tariffs.
@Connor:
You must be talking to the Trump apologist in the mirror. The cold hard reality is is the Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts were, are, and will continue to be a fiscal disaster. Are Trump, Republicans, and their voters and apologists ready to face that reality? Nope.
Yet you still support the president and the party who not only wants to increase spending but who also refuses to raise taxes on oligarchs like Elon Musk — whose companies have collected billions in taxpayer money. Instead, Trump and Republicans are trying to cut taxes for the rich. Again.
This is the rightwing fiscal insanity you shill for. The historical fact that Republican presidents are more likely to contract the economy, reduce revenues, and increase deficits is irrelevant to you. But you’re concerned about American bankruptcy? Lol Cmon man indeed.
@Connor:
The EU trade in goods and services is not remotely “mercantilist”.
Its average tariff on US imports is about 1%
In 2023, the US collected about €7 billion on EU exports to the US, and the EU collected around €3 billion on US exports to the EU.
That’s on total US exports to EU of about €350 billion.
And EU exports to the US of c. €50o billion.
The difference does NOT mean the US is being cheated somehow.
The EU also imports more minerals etc from other countries than the US, and that in turn enables them to import more from the US.
While surplus US dollars in the EU get recycled into US bonds, thus sustaining key aspects of the US global financial position.
If the concern is China, there are more effective tools than tariffs: WTO enforcement measures, financial exclusion, quotas, etc.
Those also require co-operation with various partners, who the Trump administration is currently pissing off on an epic scale.
@Connor:
Or, perhaps, government debt is different than private and corporate debt. Of course, you need intelligence and a bit of imagination to understand that.
Also, this entire “but the debt” thing would be a lot more convincing if you were willing to–for the good of the Nation and the cold hard reality–then object to things like the extension of the Trump Tax cuts. But that would potentially inconvenience you. So instead you are all behind regressive taxes like tariffs while screaming “won’t someone think of the children.”
Looking forward to the fit your pitch because we’re pointing out how thin your gruel is and your eventual rage quitting of the site again for a month or two.
Seriously get therapy, your life could be so much happier.
@JohnSF:
Stop it with you “facts.” Don’t you understand that putting tariffs on the EU will help us defeat China. And in no way will help drive former EU trade partners towards China.
And if we don’t tariff the shit out of the EU, Canada, and Mexico (among others) how are we going to bring down the debt and let Jack keep his tax cuts. Because Jack, like Trump, is the real victim here.
The rapist is saying “reciprocal tariffs.” I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.
Last week, Arthur Laffer, the R’s favorite economist, had a piece up addressing the effect of tariffs on the US auto industry, uh not good.
Outside of the echo chamber of the WH, no one believes this is a good idea.
@Connor:
You DGAF about the economy except as it relates to your personal wealth. You DGAF about people being hurt. Cut the bullshit.
You know this is bad, because you may have no integrity or honesty, but you’re not a moron. But now you’ve dived right into the identity politics if I may, of being the local MAGA gadfly. It’s your only role in this community you seem so desperate to be part of. If you were to admit the truth now, that Trump is a bumbling clown screwing the economy, which at some submerged level you know, where would that leave you vis a vis OTB? It’s not like you have anything interesting or entertaining to say.
You sent the money to the Nigerian Prince and now you lack the courage to admit it because people will know you’re just an empty suit. A mark. A sucker. A fool. You fell for a two-bit con-man everyone else here spotted more than a decade ago.
Next time you need to invent a new screen name, try Patsy. We’ll know it’s you.
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his integrity.
@Matt Bernius: I’ve been on the receiving end of a few similar Jekyll-and-Hyde conversations with you. Or do you see a queen of diamonds? I just know when you wake up, you’ll assume you were the one who was wronged.
@Matt Bernius: Regarding the social safety net, the DOGE team has apparently fired the entire staff that handles LIHEAP. This program helps more than 6 million people across the country pay heating and cooling bills. If LIHEAP goes away, I can say with certainty that people in this country will die.
@Fortune:
I realize you have an innate desire to take a heterodox point of view. And, based on past discussions, you also cannot seem to imagine that those of us who have been posting on this site for years have long records of interaction with each other.
All I can say is that over the years, I’ve gotten lots of insults from Jack/Drew/Guaraldi/Conner (and some other names I’ve forgotten). He has a long standing habit of calling people who disagree with him names, ignorant, while at the same time claiming that he knows more than the rest of us. He also tends to take views that are quite literally “Trump is just a businessman, while Joe Biden is a criminal” and again “Trump isn’t a racist or bigot, but Obama definitely was.” It goes beyond politics, as he’s also dropped classics like “gay people are very likely to be child abusers.”
He’s called me intellectually dishonest multiple times. He’s never conceded being wrong at any point. He constantly tells us that we’re hacks and should pay attention to people like the Turleys and Sowells of the world (but never seems to acknowledge the times they disagree with him).
Oh, and he gets banned or rage quits the site only to return under a new name, to start insulting us again.
And then, he occasionally posts a tut-tut comment like this, pretending he has some high ground.
I am at a point where until something he does changes in any sort of sustained way, all I am willing to do is treat him with the same respect that he has repeatedly given myself, James, Steven, and countless other commenters with. And that is absolutely none.
You can think what you want of me. I try to engage. I try to apologize when I get things wrong (as I’d done with you a few times in the past when I did get something wrong or go overboard). I’m far from perfect and working through my own stuff. And I also stand by everything I write and will clearly tell people where I stand on any topic.
That’s more than he has ever done. But by all means, feel free to defend him or think I’m being mean. I do think there are better outputs for that emotional energy. That said, you do you.
Several countries deployed import substitution policies, which involved high tariffs and other barriers to imports. Results vary, but they mostly implemented long term investment plans, either by state-owned or private companies. they didn’t just impose tariffs and declare all would be well now.
They also enacted this measures as part of an overall policy or sets of policies. A simplistic scattershot of tariffs, is more like economic snake oil.
@Jen:
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. And this is what happens when you let people who have no understanding of all the complex services that government delivers and are too smart to listen to people with that knowledge make these sorts of cuts.
Trump, or whoever is feeding him this data, has just gone utterly nuts.
He’s just claimed the EU charges a 39% tariff on US goods..
And South Korea 50%!
It’s utter insanity.
If these US tariffs are actually imposed, it will break almost every production supply chain in the US overnight.
And one more little thing: a country conspicuous by its absence from the whole list.
Russia.
Also: the US has a large surplus in services trade with the EU.
EU sold c. €320 billion of services to the US in 2023. The US sold c. €425 billion to the EU.
That’s a corn the EU is likely to stamp on rather forcefully.
The Rapist-in-Chief is hitting Taiwan with the same tariff as China, and hitting Vietnam with an even higher rate? What? We are avidly pursuing a ‘long term relationship’ with Vietnam which has a convenient location next to China. And excellent ports we used to bomb. China’s been outsourcing to Vietnam and now that makes no sense. We’re fucking Vietnam and taking it easy on China?
And we supposedly want Taiwan to be strong, right? Because if we weaken their economy that advantages China? So. . . 32% tariff? Is Rubio still alive?
Since Reagan, Republicans have not cared one bit about the debt. In fact, they are the party that has run up the most debt, the most recent being Trump adding $7.8T while having a growing economy. No, they don’t care about a balanced budget. The deficit is a feature so they can argue that social services have to be cut which is the actual goal.
@<a href="#comment-2992952″>JohnSF: @JohnSF:
Here is a handy dandy chart that the White House put out:
TRUMP ANNOUNCES HIGHER RECIPROCAL TARIFF RATES FOR ‘WORST OFFENDERS’
At the bottom of the chart is this statement: “TARIFFS CHARGED TO THE U.S.A. INCLUDING CURRENCY MANIPULATION AND TRADE BARRIERS”.
In other words, the numbers are totally made up out of thin air.
@JohnSF:
Trump has apparently decided that US companies should be exempt from VAT taxes in other countries
I’m mostly horrified at this latest insanity.
But a small part of me is thinking “Go ahead. Stick your head in the fusion reactor. It will be quicker.”
@Matt Bernius:
It. Just. Doesn’t. Sink. In.
Trump raises tariffs for same reason GW Bush invaded Iraq —- because “they hate our freedom.”
This is Trump’s Iraq moment.
May end up topping the Iraq cost of $3 trillion to US taxpayer, when all is said and done.
C’mon guys. Connor, like most conservatives, just emotes. Dont expect to see any numbers out of him to support his POV. Even when he provides a number it’s somehow the fault of the left. That 7% increase in spending? It’s with conservatives controlling all 3 branches of government.
Steve
This feels like a Babylon 5 moment: “I was there, at the dawn of the third Great Depression of Mankind (it was all men doing stupid, crazy things). It began in the Earth year 2024, with the election of a convicted felon, whose ignorance about the workings of tariffs was surpassed only by the size of his ego, and the cruelty he displayed to hide his feeling of inadequacy.”
I hope this hasn’t been mentioned above…
President Doughboy apparently thinks drug smugglers will pay tariffs, which just boggles my brain.
Un-f’ing-believable!?!
@Jen:
@Matt Bernius:
This is like the jobs terminated…they’re just going to be coming back so there’s no savings, and likely a cast to re-establish the program. It’s all propaganda. The challenge is to make Trump voters aware of the scam in a way they’ll believe.
You can tell things are going well, when the markets that thought they’d priced in the worst, heard the actual speech and. . .
So, the markets are down, the Atlanta Fed is dropping GDP projections even lower, hiring is down, consumer confidence is down, tourism is down, Trump says he doesn’t care about prices and we haven’t even begun to see the effects on consumers. . . So, yeah, things are going great.
Oh and the whole fucking world is laughing at us while Putin and Xi bully the wimp in the White House. If I was in Iran I’d be thinking a shovel and some iodine pills might be good things to order on Iran’s Amazon. Trump needs a distraction. He has to do something manly for the Rogan crowd.
@Michael Reynolds:
The felon may be about to discover Rogan is a democrat.
According to James Surowiecki, the tariff amounts supposedly charged by other countries were calculated as the US trade deficit for goods with that country divided by that country’s exports to the US.
This grade-school-level planning should result in the firing of both our Treasury and Commerce Secretaries (too bad it’s not actually a high crime or misdemeanor). It’s quite disheartening, but I like to remind myself that this is what many Americans want. I know some of those folks, and I hope they get what they wanted in spades.
Some might wonder why OTB and its commenters might not want to acknowledge we had a vegetable as president. A vegetable. With media complicity – as always.
The truth always comes out. No worries. He’s a D. Let nothing get in the way of TDS.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/02/biden-ron-klain-trump-debate-prep-book-chris-whipple
Are there no honest OTB essayists, or commenters? No shame?
@Kristina Stierholz:
I thought ti would be something along those lines, as tariffs between members of the WTO, and the GATT before it, have been coming down since the 90s. Not to mention various bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements like NAFTA and others. A tariff of 10% seems high these days, never mind the amounts the rapist is hallucinating.
Beyond a further display of the felon’s ignorance, this also shows there are no adults left in the room.
Also, I wonder if April 3rd will be remember as Black Thursday.
@gVOR10:
Learning Mandarin won’t help, I’m afraid. IMO, they’ll still be ‘peasant scum’ to their new masters.
@Matt Bernius:
Sadly, I think this is an optimistic view. I’m dismayed that the appolypse doesn’t include zombies. Just idjits.
Finally, I feel like the dog in the old Chuck Jones cartoon… It just don’t add up!
@Connor:
As opposed to a senile, corrupt, venal R?
@JohnSF: It’s NOT INSANITY; they’re just LYING.
Not much time for commenting, but a couple of thoughts:
I see three potential scenarios:
– Scenario 1: Trump is serious this time and won’t roll them back after a performative “win” like many previous tariffs. If they last long enough for the damage to fully infect the economy, then it will be ruinous not only for most Americans but also for Trump, as his credibility among all but the hardest-core cultists will be ruined.
Scenario 2: This is more shadowboxing. The tariffs will only be in place for a short time or may not even be enacted at all. Trump will claim he got concessions, notch a “win” for his “masterful” ability to hard-ball negotiate, and keep playing this game as long as it works for him. Even in the absence of tariffs, the uncertainty of ever-changing policy and the lack of any future certainty will still have non-trivial economic effects.
Scenario 3: Something in between. The tariffs are in place long enough to cause significant disruptions, but eventually, Trump realizes they are bad (for his brand and ego) and reverses them. This would be something akin in scale to the COVID economic disruptions.
Any other potentials?
I honestly have no idea how to put probabilities on these. Trump does a lot of trolling and shadowboxing, but one thing he’s been consistent on since before he was President the first time is a belief in tariffs. But Trump, in my estimation, is primarily ego-driven and does things he thinks will benefit him personally and the reality of tariffs will inevitably slam into that. So, at this point, I’d say Scenario 3 is the most likely, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that assessment.
Anyway, I’m dealing with multiple personal and professional situations here, most of them thanks to Trump and his adminstration, so I will continue to not be online much.
@Connor:
Switches to something off topic when wrong. Check.
Complains about honesty under his 15th pseudonym. Check.
Looking forward to your epic flameout telling us we’re all mean and stupid and that you know more than all of us about everything because you turned around a failing RV business.
Sad!
Cmon man you can do better.
@mattbernius:
Empirical evidence suggests that he, in fact, cannot.
@Connor: In case you haven’t noticed, Biden isn’t president any longer.
Shall we talk some more about HRC’s e-mails?
@Connor:
Um, Woodrow Wilson was a long time ago. Why bring it up now?
Oh, wait — you’re talking about the “revelation” that at times Joe Biden was almost as out of it, deluded, and disengaged as Donald Trump is 100% of the time? Yeah, that was bad. But, y’know, not nearly as bad as now.
@Connor: Up until the end of his presidency, Biden (or the team he put into place, I don’t know) seemed to doing his damdest to make things better for the American people. Maybe he wasn’t rational all the time, I don’t know (and to be clear, if he wasn’t, that was a problem, should have been disclosed, and the 25th Amendment should have been invoked.). He even was willing to let Trump claim a win with the Gaza ceasefire, not that that turned out well.
What has Trump done to make things better for the American people? Is there any circumstance where he’d put the good of America over himself? Until you can answer those questions, I don’t care what you have to say. If all you can do is point to bad things/supposedly bad things that Biden or Hillary supposedly did, your opinion doesn’t matter. You’re not discussing in good faith. It’s not clear to me why you’re here, what you think you’re accomplishing, but whatever it is, you’re wrong, unless you’re deliberately showing people what Trump supporters are like. All you have is faux outrage and whataboutism. You’re not even a good troll, just sad. Is this like the sort of thing my children do, where they decide that any attention is good, even if it’s negative attention? Are you that broken?
An example of the rank dishonesty in the White House’s “evidence” justifying this farce:
Not mentioned: the US has imposed a 25% tariff on imports of “light trucks” (AKA SUVs) since 1964.
Another one: the White House cites “simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates” to try (but fail) to make its case. A much more meaningful picture is given by the “Tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products” rates used by the World Bank, which demonstrate that really, the tariff regimes of the US and its major trading partners have been trivial for years thanks to negotiated free trade agreements.
And the claims to have carried out meticulous country-by-country analyses before fixing rates are plain ludicrous in the face of a universal 10% minimum, even on countries with which the US enjoys a trade surplus.
@Flat Earth Luddite:
True. Plus translation is already being taken over by AI.
Republicans have been the president for 9 of the last 10 recessions.. and we’ll soon be adding [at least] 1 to both of those!
Republicans in both government and private sector C-suites for decades have no plan other than “cut taxes, increase the deficit, wait for a Democrat to clean up their mess.” You know, like an incompetent loser.
I understand why Connor defends Republicans in the way he does — Republicans lost the battle of ideas long ago.
@Matt Bernius:
Go fast, break things, kill people.
Oh! Did I do thaaaat?
@Andy: “Anyway, I’m dealing with multiple personal and professional situations here,”
I hope all your situations work out easily and painlessly… at least to the greatest extent possible.
@Andy: Allow me to second @wr. I hope things get settled soon, and in as positive a manner as possible.
@Andy:
First I’m sorry to hear that administration policies are not only impacting your professional life but also your personal one. My heart seriously goes out to you.
Second I think your assessment of the situation is correct. The problem is we have no idea which of those paths will be taken (or even which one most complies with the goals of these tariffs). More on that here: https://outsidethebeltway.com/shocking-an-unstable-policy-environment-makes-long-term-business-planning-hard/
@wr and @Steven L. Taylor and @Matt Bernius:
Thank you all, that’s very kind.
Just to clarify, I’m fine and think things will be fine, it’s just that there is a lot going on in terms of my time and attention and some challenges.
Work-wise, I’m in the cellular and satellite connectivity industry, and business slowed as work-from-home decreased. This was not unexpected post-COVID and something we planned for, but that’s accelerating under Trump, and the tariffs (assuming they stick for more than a couple of months) are going to wreak havoc with the supply chains for this type of gear. Like many other things, it’s a global supply chain with manufacturing, design, and support in different countries. Clients want to know what to do. Trying to keep on top of changes and keep clients advised takes a lot of time.
Matt, your latest post addresses one of the core problems – the uncertainty is really bad.
Probably the most serious thing right now involves my daughter who is a junior in college. Her close friend and roommate is a Pakistani exchange student. She normally goes back home over the summer break, but she has a completely justifiable fear that if she goes back to Pakistan, she won’t be allowed back in the US for her final year. She’s on a student visa. We’ve been sort of surrogate parents for her (he father is dead, her mom lives in Pakistan), so we’re trying to help with options to stay in the US over the summer. Expertise on visa issues is in short supply right now, so we spend a lot of time researching and exploring potential options.
Those are probably the two biggest things, but the takeaway is that real-life stuff takes priority over non-essential online stuff (love OTB, and online debate, but it’s a luxury), so I won’t be commenting as often as I typically do.
@Connor:
Did you even read the link you posted?
The entire article is focused on 2024. You criticized Dems for moving on from Biden, now you’re chiding Dems for backing a vegetable as President.
The article you posted says nothing about the media.
Klain sharply contrasts Biden’s acuity during Klain’s tenure as Chief of Staff with Biden’s state of mind during debate prep.
Not to mention that you are dishonest about what the conversation at OTB was wrt to Biden’s fitness during the campaign.
If you were a chimp, you would be the best at throwing shit at the wall. Wait, where were you on 1/6/2021?
Your next handle should be Pathological Mendacity. Or My Lips Are Stained Orange.
Deranged Partisan? Don’t Know Jack? The Angry Connor Roy? I Read Less Than Trump?
Oh, oh! How about Driving Mr. Clarence?
Jack N. Donald?
This is a fun parlor game.
@Andy:
I was wondering about you earlier. Pulling for ya. Keep your head up.