DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Liberation Day

Oh, memories....

I am not going to play chicken little on this thread quite yet.

The reason was that I do not understand what the tariff policy of our trading partners is or has been. Not my field.

What is pretty obvious is that the proposed tariff structure is a pretty radical change in US trade policy. If it goes into effect, there will be a period of adjustment. It could very well be ugly.

Also I am pretty sure that every other country is looking at how this impacts them, both from an import and export perspective.

My perception is that the new policy has elements of "made up rules" and are not actually associated with the policies of other countries tariffs on imported US goods. That is a problem.

We went through this period of globalization. There are good and bad things about it. This will change that.

Regarding statements made by Bernie or others, those are snapshots in time. And the degree and magnitude of this change will have its own set of impacts.

So the memes are not beneficial.

Side thought.

Well this probably has a positive impact of climate change and global warming, because overall trade will be reduced with this policy.

Trump has finally recognized that climate change exists. It is a new form of a carbon tax.

 

Oh, memories....

No Rally!

Dow ended 1679 Down (if 1246 was the 8th largest drop, where does this fit in)

NASDAQ Ended 1050 Down


But if that weren't enough!

No Tariffs on Russia.

Tariffs placed on two islands that only have Penguins.. NO PEOPLE (Heard and McDonald Islands if you wanna look it up) Who was the genius staffer that called that one?

Stellalntis has decided to lay off 900 workers in the US, Canada and Mexico and closing 5 plants temporarily.

But hey,. he's a Stable Genius! He only bankrupted a couple of Casinos.... He knows what he's doing! Right?

I really don't get this, but it is more of a distraction than a meaningful conversation.

It is just the Dem talking point to point out how silly the listing of country's is. Trump does silly things all the time.

I am not going to make a long post.

If you are in favor of the USA working man or woman, then you know this is a good for the country. We are already seeing large companies committing billions and trillions of dollars to build plants in this country. It will bring back jobs.

If you are stuck in a Wal-Mart mentality and base your purchasing on cheaper is better, then I get why some of you don't like this.

That seems like a very positive outlook on proceedings witout a lot of "why". Stating that we know it is good for the country is a statement that I do not agree with and feel needs some examination - hence the thread.

I've posted multiple articles showing Tariffs in Term 1 caused Washing machine prices to go up by 42% ... it created jobs in the USA at a cost of $800K per job. That's not good for the USA.

In terms of coumpanies making statements about investing Billions and Trillions (from your post in the other thread) - you'll have to show me when they actually do it instead of talk about it. Apple had investment commitments before Trump started talking tariffs - their announcement of $500B isn't supposed to start until 2028. Do you actually believe them? Term 1 - we heard companies would invest in the USA but never did. Carrier still sent 62% of their jobs to Mexico despite claims that Trump had saved them. Foxconn was going to invest $10B in Wisconsin - the number is around $670M and might/probably would have happened anyway. Apple made the same sort of big announcement Trump Term 1 as it did recently - nothing changed.

APPLE - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kolawo...nside-apples-massive-500-billion-ai-bet/

As for manufacturing jobs under Trump 1 and Biden -- Facts probably tell a different story than you feel or hear from the media:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

You liked a post the other day where I responded to Pit telling him Trump supporters don't take him literally but seriously - meaning don't pay attention to what he says, but what he does. Well that same 'logic' needs to apply to the facts about investment and job creation. Don't pay attention to the Apple headline - pay attention to the facts of what actually happened. Don't pay attention to Fox telling you how Trump creates manufacturing jobs and Biden doesn't - look at the facts. There are empirical statistics for All Employees, Manufacturing (MANEMP) under Trump and Biden in the link above.

I'm in the wait and see camp. There have been tariffs that have failed and others used as tools to negotiate future terms that have been successful. I believe the latter is the plan of the administration but we'll see what happens. What's funny is what Fate mentioned the other day. Everyone on here w/ EDS and TDS is now a global economist and claiming this will fail because their media of choice told them to think this way. These same people, and the media they follow, have been wrong for the past four years in just about EVERYTHING, so I think I'll defer to other avenues of information or wait to see what will happen over the next few months.

So, I deviate from your POV in the fact that this will be good for the country because I don't think anyone really knows at this point. What was known for months was this was going to hurt in the short term. Personally, I'm fine with that as long as it is a means to an end and it possibly reshapes the way the US does business.

Appreciate an actual post instead of the normal troll memes and twitter posts. But coming from you and looking at what you post from your echo chamber - this is laughable. And as for whether tariffs are good or bad when implemented like 1,000lbs of TNT thrown into the mix adhoc, we saw what happened term 1 so we have recent history to see what happened. And it's not media but economics that tells us whether this is good or bad. Whether it creates jobs or doesn't. Whether it lowers prices or consumers pay with inflated costs. Rocket scinence and bipartisan politics this isn't.

China retaliated with a 34% tariff -

and everything is dropping like a rock again-this isn't yesterday

Futures tied to the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 1,100 points, or 2.8%. Futures levels indicated the Dow would open official trading about 1,500 points lower. This follows a 1,679.39 point decline on Thursday. S&P 500 futures
lost 2.7% after the benchmark shed 4.84% on Thursday.

Nasdaq 100 futures
dropped 2.8% as many tech companies have exposure to China.

China’s commerce ministry said Friday the country will impose a 34% levy on all U.S. products. This matches the tariff on Chinese goods coming into the U.S. unveiled by President Donald Trump on Wednesday

Name them....

anybody checked out the stock futures this morning? might be another bloodbath at the opening bell.

We live in a nation where people like you don't think people should make a living wage. They sometimes can't even make ends meet. Then you have the gall to say they think "cheaper is better". They get paid so low they have no choice but to buy cheaper due to people keeping wages down and then you blame them for it. I expect no less from you.

You must have forgotten how "commitments from business" worked out during the first trump administration. Just ask Carrier employees.

I hear you on that part. I do think we have some sort of minimal trade left with them that could have been included. I need to double check that, though.

What I don’t get is why we included places like the McDonald Islands which are uninhabited, but we don’t include Russia.

Some of us look at history rather than listening to the media. And targeted tariffs aren't always a bad thing. Strategic tariffs aren't always a bad thing. That's not what any of this is. This isn't a case of "all tariffs bad". This is a case of placing "tariffs across the globe stupid."

That's why memes trying to claim anyone who has ever supported any kind of tariffs is the same thing as what we are seeing now is only to troll.

For anyone interested in actually learning the results of these kind of tariffs mean I suggest they look into this. No link so you can use your own source according to who you think is credible.

Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act

The Tariff Act of 1930, also known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, was a protectionist trade measure signed into law in the United States by President Herbert Hoover on June 17, 1930.

My take on this is that manufacturing has become so much of a smaller proportion of our economy than it used to be, especially when you look at it as a ratio of our GDP.

Most of our whole reason for allowing free trade was that we saw ourselves at the time becoming more of the “white collar” nation and allowing other countries to be the “blue collar” workers. That did ultimately end up failing, because things like education here went down the tubes and we had cities and regions start to rapidly decline due to the movement of jobs. However, I feel like the cat really got out of the bag when we did that.

Are tariffs useful tools sometimes? Yes, they are when they’re targeted and done with adequate thought processes and there are consults with economic subject matter experts. I think that was some of the point the people in Memphis’ troll posts were advocating.

This consistent ready, fire, aim approach by the admin though is more “bull in a China shop implementation by the current admin though. I don’t foresee it working out in the long term because I don’t think they’ll survive the midterms at this pace, unless something turns around in the next 1.5 years.

j/c:

Interesting information for comparison's sake since there has been so much talk from pundits and articles referencing the Depression Era tariffs.......

To understand the differences in U.S. economic conditions between the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and Donald Trump's recent tariffs (announced in early 2025 and presumably implemented around now, April 2025), we need to compare the economic contexts, trade environments, and policy goals of each period. Here's a breakdown based on available historical data and recent developments:

Economic Conditions in 1930 (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)
Onset of the Great Depression:
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was signed into law on June 17, 1930, about eight months after the stock market crash of October 1929. The U.S. economy was already sliding into the Great Depression, though the full severity wasn’t yet apparent. Industrial production had begun to decline, and unemployment was rising (from 3.2% in 1929 to 8.7% in 1930, eventually peaking at 24.9% by 1933).

GDP was contracting: it fell from $104.6 billion in 1929 to $91.2 billion in 1930, and further to $56.4 billion by 1933, a cumulative drop of about 46%.

Trade Position:
The U.S. was running a trade surplus in the late 1920s (exports exceeded imports by about $1 billion annually). Imports were a small portion of GDP—around 5.6% in 1929—reflecting a relatively closed economy compared to today.

The global economy was fragile, with European nations struggling to recover from World War I and facing their own economic downturns.

Economic Goals and Policy Context:
The Smoot-Hawley Act aimed to protect American farmers and industries by raising tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods, increasing the average tariff rate on dutiable imports from about 40% to nearly 60%. It was a broad, protectionist measure passed during an economic crisis, intended to shield domestic producers but enacted without strategic negotiation or leverage.

The policy backfired as trading partners (e.g., Canada, France, and others) retaliated with their own tariffs, leading to a 65-66% collapse in global trade between 1929 and 1934. U.S. exports dropped from $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.6 billion in 1933.

Broader Economic Environment:
The Federal Reserve’s tight monetary policy exacerbated the downturn by contracting the money supply. There was no significant fiscal stimulus, and President Hoover’s focus on balancing the budget (e.g., via the Revenue Act of 1932) limited recovery efforts.

The U.S. lacked the integrated global supply chains that define modern economies, so the impact was more about trade volumes than production networks.

-------------------------

Economic Conditions in 2025 (Trump’s Recent Tariffs)
Current Economic State:
As of April 2025, the U.S. economy appears to be in a relatively stable condition compared to 1930, though specific data for this exact moment is unavailable. Based on trends from late 2024 and early 2025 reports, GDP growth has likely been positive (around 2-3% annually in recent years), and unemployment has hovered around 4-5%, far from Depression-era levels.

There’s no indication of an imminent recession akin to 1929, though some analysts warn of risks from trade disruptions or inflation pressures stemming from the new tariffs.

Trade Position:
The U.S. now runs a persistent trade deficit, with imports significantly outpacing exports. In 2023, imports were about 14.5% of GDP, and the trade deficit was around $800 billion. This is a stark contrast to the surplus of the 1920s, meaning tariffs today hit a larger share of the economy and affect consumer prices more directly.

Imports are deeply embedded in modern supply chains, with goods like electronics, auto parts, and energy crossing borders multiple times before reaching consumers.

Economic Goals and Policy Context:
Trump’s recent tariffs, announced in early 2025, include a baseline 10% tariff on all imports, with higher rates (e.g., 25% on Canada and Mexico, 10% on China) targeting specific countries. Unlike Smoot-Hawley’s blanket approach, these tariffs are framed as strategic tools to address non-trade issues like immigration (from Mexico), fentanyl trafficking, and currency manipulation (by China), alongside boosting domestic manufacturing.

The tariffs build on Trump’s earlier policies (e.g., 2018-2019 tariffs and the USMCA), which aimed to reshore industries. For example, the USMCA’s rules requiring 75% North American content for autos and $16/hour wages have already shifted some production back to the U.S.

Retaliation is a risk, with Canada and Mexico threatening counter-tariffs on U.S. goods (e.g., Canada targeting $107 billion in U.S. exports). However, the global economy’s interdependence might temper a full-scale trade war compared to the 1930s.

Broader Economic Environment:
The Federal Reserve has more tools today, like interest rate adjustments and quantitative easing, to mitigate economic shocks, unlike the rigid policies of the 1930s. Fiscal policy is also more flexible, though Trump’s proposed tax cuts (potentially adding $8 trillion to the deficit over a decade) could widen the trade deficit further.

The global economy is far more integrated, with complex value chains linking the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China. This makes tariffs more disruptive to production but also gives the U.S. leverage as a major consumer market.

Key Differences
Economic Starting Point: In 1930, the U.S. was entering a depression; in 2025, it’s operating from a position of relative strength, with no immediate crisis akin to 1929.

Trade Dependence: Imports were a minor part of GDP in 1930 (5.6%) versus a significant share today (14.5%), amplifying the domestic impact of tariffs now.

Trade Balance: The U.S. had a surplus in 1930, so Smoot-Hawley hurt export sectors most via retaliation. Today’s deficit means tariffs raise consumer costs more directly, though they aim to reduce import reliance.

Policy Intent: Smoot-Hawley was a broad protectionist move with little strategic focus, while Trump’s tariffs are targeted, tied to geopolitical goals, and build on prior reshoring efforts.

Global Context: The 1930s saw a fragmented world economy with less interdependence, making retaliation simpler but devastating. Today’s interconnected supply chains complicate the fallout but might deter extreme responses.

In short, while Smoot-Hawley deepened an existing crisis by choking trade in a less globalized world, Trump’s tariffs operate in a robust but interconnected economy, aiming to reshape trade patterns rather than just protect against imports. The risks—higher prices, retaliation, and potential slowdown—differ in scope and nature due to these contrasting conditions.

There is also a difference in bringing back manufacturing jobs compared to the actual number of human jobs that will bring back. Many manufacturing jobs that used to be done by humans is now being done by robots. Humans are being replaced. AI will only further that trend.

I know how wonderful they think it sounds to say this company or that company "pledged to spend", and then put out some huge dollar amount. First, in the past they usually fall well short of their stated investment amount and many of these "jobs" people claim they are bringing back are done by robots. A far better gauge would be not how much money they will be spending but how many actual jobs they will be creating.

"Policy Intent: Smoot-Hawley was a broad protectionist move with little strategic focus, while Trump’s tariffs are targeted, tied to geopolitical goals, and build on prior reshoring efforts."

This is only one reason you failed to provide the link. It would be impossible to state a fact any more false than this one.

Do you think a Wal-Mart mentality is a conscientious decision? That is just sad.

Continue to carry Trumps water...

we still have trading going on with Russia.

people keep forgetting - or intentionally leaving that out: if we had even half the infrastructure for manufacturing like we did back then, then while it would've been painful, it would've actually worked in the long run.

but we don't have that infrastructure. the same people complaining that we don't have the infrastructure now were the ones blocking this country from building it for the last 30-40 years.

So several trillion wiped out in the markets, all so billionaires can get tax breaks on our backs. Trumps agenda is as stupid as he is.

Economic OBLITERATION DAY… Nothing will get better until we tax the rich.

Well, we didn't include Mexico or Canada either. It's not like he singled out Russia.

LIBERATION DAY was a move to liberate the money of the stupid, sending it to a government coffer that only trump and Elon control… who will get YOUR TAX DOLLARS NOW? Lmao, if it wasn’t so keystone cops it would be funny.

Well we sort of reached the poo flinging and personal attacks already.

On the subject of whether tariffs can/do work - I think there's two separate issues. 1. Can they and do they help when carefully and moderately implemented? Probably because I think all countries use them to some extent or another, whether to generate income or address an imbalance with the trading nation. ..... 2. Does the blunt 5,000 lb hammer applied by Trump yesterday, that has devastated markets around the world work? Worth diferentiating because the two things are not at all the same.

I had posted on page 1 an article and a quote relating to analysis of Trump tariffs in term 1 and if they work/worked. The quote referenced how trade deficit is directly linked to fiscal debt - large trade deficits often accompany countires with large fiscal debt. . . . I was intrigued so I asked AI. Here's what it said:

#The relationship between **fiscal debt** (government borrowing) and **trade deficits** (importing more than exporting) is interconnected through macroeconomic forces, particularly in how a nation finances its spending and interacts with the global economy. Here’s how they’re linked:

---

## **1. Twin Deficits Hypothesis**
The **"twin deficits"** theory suggests that large **government budget deficits** (fiscal debt) can contribute to **trade deficits**. Here’s why:
- When a government spends more than it collects in taxes (running a fiscal deficit), it borrows money, often by issuing bonds.
- If domestic savings aren’t enough to cover this borrowing, the country attracts foreign capital (foreigners buy U.S. Treasury bonds, for example).
- This foreign capital inflow strengthens the nation’s currency, making imports cheaper and exports more expensive → widening the trade deficit.

**Example:** The U.S. has run both large fiscal deficits and trade deficits for decades, partly because foreign investors (like China and Japan) fund U.S. debt, keeping interest rates low but reinforcing trade imbalances.

---

### **2. National Savings vs. Investment**
A trade deficit fundamentally reflects a gap between **a country’s savings and investment**:
- **Trade Deficit = Investment – Savings**
- If a country invests more than it saves (e.g., due to government borrowing), it must import capital from abroad, which shows up as a trade deficit.

**Example:** If the U.S. government runs a big fiscal deficit (reducing national savings), and businesses keep investing (e.g., in tech or infrastructure), the shortfall is covered by foreign lenders, worsening the trade deficit.

---

### **3. Interest Rates & Currency Effects**
- **Fiscal Debt ↑ → Higher Interest Rates?**
- If government borrowing pushes up interest rates (to attract lenders), it can draw foreign investment, strengthening the currency.
- A stronger currency makes imports cheaper and exports pricier → trade deficit widens.
- **But…** If foreign capital flows in heavily (like with the U.S. dollar’s global demand), interest rates may stay low, masking the effect.

---

### **4. Demand-Driven Trade Deficits**
- When governments spend heavily (stimulus, military budgets, etc.), it can boost domestic demand, leading to more imports.
- Example: The U.S. in the 1980s (Reagonomics) and 2000s (Bush tax cuts) saw both fiscal deficits and trade deficits expand.

---

### **Does This Always Happen? Not Necessarily.**
- **Japan** runs big fiscal deficits but often has trade surpluses (due to high domestic savings and export strength).
- **Germany** has fiscal discipline but huge trade surpluses (due to export-driven manufacturing).
- **U.S. Exception:** The dollar’s role as the global reserve currency lets it sustain twin deficits without immediate crisis (foreigners keep buying Treasuries).

---

### **Trump’s Policies & the Twin Deficits**
- His **tax cuts (2017)** increased the fiscal deficit, while his **tariffs** aimed to cut the trade deficit.
- Result: The trade deficit initially **grew** (due to strong U.S. demand and dollar strength) before COVID disrupted trade.
- Lesson: Fiscal stimulus (debt) often worsens trade deficits in the short run unless matched by higher savings or export boosts.

---

### **Bottom Line**
- **Fiscal debt can fuel trade deficits** by reducing national savings, attracting foreign capital, and strengthening the currency.
- But other factors (currency status, productivity, global demand) also play a role.
- **Key question:** Is the trade deficit a problem? If it’s funding productive investment (like tech), maybe not. If it’s just debt-fueled consumption, it could be risky long-term.

Would you like a deeper dive on a specific country (e.g., U.S. vs. China debt-trade dynamics)?

I found it more interesting than the poo flinging.

I am going to revisit this. I understand that you have the room to make choices to pay more for goods. I also understand that you advocate millions upon millions of Americans not make a living wage due to them working in the service industry. That's why your statement is contradictory. You can't support people not make a living wage and then blame them for shopping at Walmart looking for the cheapest prices.

They don't have that same choice that many of us do. This is a prime example of someone who seems to be out of touch with people who are not in their same situation and acting like the current problem is their fault. It's not. Hopefully this may help you put things in perspective and help you better understand the current state of affairs with many consumers.............

Nearly half of Americans say they live paycheck to paycheck

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/19/ban...americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html

Hopefully now you will understand that "Wal-Mart mentality" you posted.

Of course you are. The real story here is that you and Woofer want to #fakeoutrage when anybody reading knows exactly what Balpeen is talking about. We've been drunk on cheap goods since the '70s and it has cost million and millions of American jobs.

Acting like the only people that shop at Wal-mart are those that have no other choice is classic leftist crybaby b.s. aimed at blaming and demeaning the messenger instead of facing facts.


#thisiswhyyoulostinacurbstomp

https://www.reuters.com/world/china-hits-back-us-tariffs-with-rare-earth-export-controls-2025-04-04/


China to restrict exports of raw minerals. Whoever could have seen that coming?

FATE, the corporations you fought so hard to deregulate and reduce taxes for the last 30-40 are the very ones who made this country drunk on cheap goods by shutting down plants and going overseas. this is part of the reason we are decline in this country: guys who keep defending entities who put us in this situation in the first place.

Peen, who the hell will be able to afford Walmart prices after this debacle? Lmao, that where you’ll probably have to readjust your spending mentality to… It’s simple really, Trump wants to wipe out the middle and working classes ability to survive without being a slave to the ruling class. He want’s brave souls willing to die for his versions of the panama canal, the golden gate bridge, and the hoover dam… people willing to risk death to feed their families. I wondered why he mentioned all of the in his not STOU speech. He thinks tariff revenue will replace income and capital gains tax revenue for the country.

But he doesn’t learn from the mistakes of the past. Tariffs never worked like that. And if these are protective tariffs, what American manufacturer is being protected? We are second only to China in manufacturing as is… Xi can make his people work for whatever he wants. Trump wants that power.

Honestly think both parties can take an equal share of the blame. I'm not convinced deregulation is the root cause. I tend to think of the republican movement to deregulate is more likely to impact the environment and employment rights.

This is what you call it and how you act when someone points out the fact that about half of America can't afford to shop anywhere else but Walmart.

Your incessant need to attack everyone who points out facts you don't want to hear is becoming an obsession with you.

So these facts outrage you. Sounds like a personal problem. I didn't say that "only people that shop at Wal-mart are those that have no other choice". That's some BS you created in your own mind. Since reality seems to be flying over your head today I said that close to 50% of Americans have no choice.

But according to mgh none of what you posted is flinging poo since it's a rant.



I don't think you have any idea what a #curbstomp is.

Reduce taxes? We've had one of the highest corporate tax rates among developed economies for decades. That and cheap labor are the very reasons corps have moved out. While Pit shifts the convo to Balpeen doesn't care about "a living wage", everyone ignores the elephant in the room. If an American shoelace worker makes "a living wage", shoelaces are $13 and nobody buys them. I can look around my house at the choices I've made, many are based on quality, many are based on cost. We've been taught to consume, consume, consume to the point that we don't even care about quality in most cases.

Blaming one party for the fact that we've been trained to buy junk from countries where people work for slave wages is disingenuous imo.

Corporate Tax Rates

The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) reduced the top US corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and the average combined federal and state rate from 38.9 percent to 25.8 percent. As a result, in 2023, the top US corporate tax rate, including the average state and local corporate rate, is lower than that of all other leading economies in the G7 except the United Kingdom, with a 25 percent rate The U.S. rate is slightly below the average rate for the 37 other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries combined (26.1 percent, weighted by gross domestic product (GDP)

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefin...tes-and-revenues-compare-other-countries

Speaking of trying to shift the conversation.

Nope, no fake outrage here. Just pointing out the simple fact that shopping Wal-Mart is something that is done when you need something and don't really have an option.

Grew up that way. Not fun.