this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
252 points (98.8% liked)

politics

22642 readers
5341 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Yesterday, the Trump administration announced a series of tariffs it characterized as “reciprocal,” ranging from 10 percent to 50 percent and calculated for every country on Earth. The country-specific rates were made public at the press conference announcing the tariffs, as well as on White House social media.

However, despite the characterization of the tariffs as “reciprocal,” and despite the accompanying graphics referring to foreign “tariffs charged to the USA including currency manipulation and trade barriers,” the White House did not actually measure tariffs, currency manipulation, or trade barrier policies employed by other countries. Instead, it drew its estimates from something else entirely: bilateral trade deficits in goods.

Specifically, the White House documents appear to allege the “tariffs charged to the USA” are the greater of two different quantities: (a) 10 percent, and (b) the 2024 US trade deficit in goods with a given country, divided by the total quantity of US imports from that country.

Set aside, for now, the damage to economic growth these tariffs will cause, or the distributional impact of one of the largest tax hikes in US history. Other Tax Foundation work will cover that. (We currently estimate the cumulative amount of Trump tariffs at $3.1 trillion over 10 years, amounting to a roughly $2,100 tax increase per household in 2025 alone.)

The method for calculating other countries’ so-called “tariffs” for reciprocal purposes is nonsense. Bilateral deficits are not tariffs, nor are they meaningful anyway; trade in services is relevant; and tariffs cannot be used to target overall trade deficits. The overall result is an extraordinary policy error that will severely damage the economy while failing to reduce the US trade deficit.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago

Breaking News! Trump is complete moron….who could have seen this coming

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 35 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

It's because he is not a businessman, he is a scammer and grifter.
The concept of a good deal where both parties leave the table satisfied is strange to him, he needs to have "the win" over the other side.
If he does not get "the win" he considers it a bad deal where he got ripped off, this is what he projects on the USA.

He will not consider WHY foreign trading partners do not want his inferior products. He is selling them and they must buy, and if they do not buy it is "how they rip off america".
This is the core of his thinking to strike back with his tariffs, he directly equates the unbalanced import/export lists as enemy tariffs on his goods.

Look at the list he showed, he gives Vietnam 54% tariffs "because they do it" ... but actually it's the 54% of import/export that is traded...

His whole reasoning makes no sense, it only does if you realize he has no knowledge of the workings of imports and exports and he plainly is not educated as a businessman at all.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

I don’t know if he’s even a scammer or grifter. He seems like a tool being used entirely by those around him, and he’s oblivious because they make him think it’s all his idea and it’s always such a great idea. It’s like elder abuse. But the elder’s an asshole so nobody feels bad.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 15 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Your assessment of Trump's thinking is 100% correct, but I just want to pick up on this specific detail;

He will not consider WHY foreign trading partners do not want his inferior products. He is selling them and they must buy, and if they do not buy it is "how they rip off america".

And point out that actually in many cases its not that the American made products are bad, it's that the countries in question can't afford them. No one in Cambodia or Vietnam is buying an American made car or phone. But Americans buy loads of products made with cheap Vietnamese and Cambodian labour. It's precisely because that labour is cheap that Americans want those products, and it's precisely because that labour is cheap that no one there can afford American products.

This is big part of the flawed thinking behind these tariffs. They're trying to eliminate trade imbalances that are a direct result of America exploiting other countries for cheap labour, but they're doing so by acting as if those countries are somehow exploiting America.

[–] wax@feddit.nu 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Also, are those the type of jobs the US wants domestically? Sweatshops? In that case I guess the recent changes to working restrictions for teens in FL totally makes sense /s

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

So, obviously, this part of the question gets more complicated.

Ideally, no one should want sweat shop jobs to exist anywhere. Ideally we should all be OK with paying more for clothes in order to have them produced by people who are getting paid a decent wage and have decent working conditions.

And tariffs, if used effectively and smartly, could be a part of solving that problem. A government might choose to carefully and thoughtfully apply tariffs on goods made with sweatshop labour in order to encourage companies to raise their employment standards in a way that that creates better employment opportunities both in their country and in the foreign nations where the manufacturing is currently being done.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the bullshit spewing out of the white house.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 41 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Fuck everyone who voted for him. This is on you.

[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

One should expect conservatives to vote for whomever is leading their party, regardless of how insane or hypocritical it would seem. They are united in this combination of a sunken-cost fallacy, stubborn pride and willful ignorance.

The non-voters are the ones who should draw the most ire. Apathy and defeatism had no place in the last election. There was a clear choice to be made to keep this country, as we knew it, afloat, and the non-voters did less than nothing to assist. Fuck them, ever so much.

[–] PointyReality@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

I am just going to say that the republicans/conservatives that continue to vote for the same party because its a tradition in their family is just as stupid as the non-voters. In no way shape or form should this style of “sports team” voting be a thing, instead vote on the party because of their policies and not the person because they wear red. In saying that the non-voters are just as idiotic, and yet all they want to blame rather then themselves is the Dems and their messaging. Jfc your telling me you did not vote because option “b” which was blatant in their authoritarian, mysognistic and racist messaging was not enough to vote for Kamala because they did not find her compelling. My god the idiocracy is alive and well over their.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemm.ee 2 points 18 hours ago

This isn’t sports, or even a parliamentary system. You don’t have to just accept whoever “your” party nominates.

[–] in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Too soon to say that, wait until Americans start starving.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

It’s never too soon, or too often.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 10 points 17 hours ago

The most superficial examination of trade deficits, a five minute YouTube primer by a highschool student could easily get you to this conclusion. It’s obvious that the intent is to crash the economy.

[–] mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 14 hours ago

One easy example: get ready to pay a lot more for vanilla. Madagascar makes 50% of it, and gets a 47% tariff. Good luck picking up the slack with US domestic production.