DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Permanent vs Temporary Impacts of Trump II

So anyone paying attention to the global markets and digging a little bit deeper than just the DOW rebound (which is good) will possibly have seen, heard, read that globally there appears to be a shift away from US markets. No, not a collapse, not a sizemic event just yet. It's literally a shift. I've seen and read it in a few places. I see the US economic outlook appears to be stagnent. I see and hear countries in EU responding (and the German bond market has tanked recently as a result to their economic changes in policy) - China is doing what it feels it needs to in order to protect itself. . . . . I also know that on a military front after the shenanigans of Trump in Ukraine and the sudden withdrawl of satellite images/intel and Trump's pandering to Putin while publicly telling the world Zelenski started the conflict etc - there is a similar sort sentiment that EU nations need to be closer to more stable/reliable allies and less reliant on the US. Some might feel that's a good thing - others not so much and feel that political pressure top get countries to up spending (for example).

So - made me think about how a lot of the noise from Trump and this admistration creates a very termporary impact. Even things like inflation due to the tarrifs and uncertainty regards what might come next will pass and adjust even if there is some short term pain/reprecussion. But - what is permanent and long term consequences? For me:

1. The supreme court (thru McOnnell and Trump) has been tilted too far right and will remain that way for a long time. Decades.
2. As above - I believe money will move out of US markets to overseas markets. Again not catastrophic but enough to be measurable and make a difference. In the shorter term I think the global economy is going to rebound better and stronger too - which creates a longer term issue for the US.
3. I don't think "western" allies will trust the US like before - I don't know if that is permanent or can be recovered. Trump's actions and rhetoric are often isolationist - maybe some people think that result is great. I would not share that opinion and think the impact will be decades in the undoing if not permanent.
4. The cuts to US Aid - not only is that causing deaths today, it will create them in the future (seen forecasts of 4 million more deaths from Aids as a result by 2030). The cuts also reduce US influence and creates a vacumm where - for example - China can fill the void and become more influencial and more highly thought of.

interested if others agree or disagree or if I missed anything.

I actually think many of the long-term effects you stated will actually be a benefit.

3. I am all for EU countries deciding to put their big-boy pants on and start making decisions/do things without the US leading the way. You mentioned defense spending, but the issue here runs far deeper, IMO. EU has been characterized as not capable of doing much of anything (especially on the defense front) without the US leading the way. I think that alliance will start to function more as a partnership when the others decide there's more than one adult in the room. So while it's debatable if this was intentional or not, I think the Trump influence could end up as a positive for NATO (but maybe not the for the EU countries that have to spend more on defense).

I think trust isn't quite the right word. I think the US will be seen as less reliable. Our foreign policy can undergo a seismic shift every 4 years.

1. Too far right/left is subjective. I'm more interested in outside influences in the Supreme Court. They were structured to be independent of partisan nonsense, but they may not be living up to the responsibility of wielding that power.

2. I think what you're talking about is the world moving off of the US dollar as the dominant currency. This has been a long-term goal of China for a while, and I think this is something we should ABSOLUTELY be worried about, because it's now a significant pillar of our economy. My understanding is that if this were to happen, it would be catastrophic.

Here is the issue. Nations who once considered us a strong ally are coming to an understanding. In fact so is the entire globe. You can look at the the everything from Paris agreement on climate change, the WHO, the The Trans-Pacific Partnership on trade, the Iran nuclear deal, the 1951 Refugee Convention and so on. The end of USAID.

What the globe is seeing is that America can no longer be trusted as a partner or to live up to their agreements. All they can count on is what is signed and agreed to by the administration in power at the time. The very next election cycle everything can change on a dime. The confidence they once had in our country has been eroded. I think that will create more long term issues than some others may think.

I agree with your points for the most part. This has certainly created an even stronger and more favorable outlook for China on the world stage and has also emboldened Putin. None of that is positive news.

Agree with both of you ... though with Oober, I think EU looking at the US as being unrelaible does not help on multiple fronts. It will mean less likely to share intel - it means a move away from spending on US military technology ... I don't think those things are positive. Having EU and countries like Spain and Germany who have not lived up to their end of the agreement spend 3% or 3.5% on defense will be a positive.

With the supreme court - I also disagree that having the SC too heavily weighted with more extreme views of left or right is not bad. I think it needs balance. It is not at the moment .... but I wholeheartedly agree that there is a problem over who influences them, and how they 'police' themselves. No-one including the SC should be above the law or transparent and observably ethical with their conduct.

As for China and the US dollar bing the dominat currency - I think Trumps actions, tariffs and general instability for all worldwide trading partners be they ally or not, that makes the potential for that to happen significanly more likely. That's not saying it is likely - it just means it's got more chance than it had before. Not good. China, Russia, much of the middle east (including Quatar and Saudi) have an interest in this happening.

I agree with you. I would also posit that Foreign Military Sales projections have already taken a hit.

If I understand global finance correctly (I probably don't), it's the overall health/strength of our economy that allows us to continue being the standard global currency... and that has been on a downward trend LONG before Trump (namely, budget deficits and ballooning total debt), the downgrading of USA credit rating, etc. While the effects of what he's doing is probably hurting this further, you can't pin this on him.

I'm no expert either, but I was specifically thinking of a scenario in a book that I read many years ago. Don't remember the author's name, but he was a very right-wing guy who was involved with the US government at some level formally, and he wrote a book about threats to the USA.... One of the topics was how badly the USA would be impacted if the US dollar was not used to price oil. He then went on to outline the many ways in which China and Russia and middle Eastern countries were trying to move in that direction to undermine the US dollar and make it possible for a different currency to be used to price oil. That is what I was initially referring to in the first post.

Going to ai and asking what are the implications for the price of oil not to be based on the US dollar and this is the response you get.

If the US dollar (USD) were no longer the primary currency used to price oil, the global economy could experience significant shifts. Oil-importing nations could benefit from potentially lower fuel costs, while oil-exporting countries might face economic challenges due to reduced revenues. The US dollar's role as a reserve currency could weaken, potentially impacting the US economy and global financial stability.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Impact on Oil-Importing Nations:
Lower Fuel Costs:
A shift away from the USD could lead to lower oil prices, benefiting countries that rely on imports for fuel, potentially stimulating economic activity.
Reduced Inflation:
Lower oil prices can contribute to lower inflation rates, as oil is a key input in many industries.
Impact on Oil-Exporting Nations:
Reduced Revenue:
Oil-exporting countries would face the challenge of pricing their oil in different currencies, potentially impacting their revenue and economic stability.
Economic Strain:
Lower oil prices can strain government budgets and lead to economic difficulties in oil-producing nations.
Political Instability:
In some cases, lower oil prices could contribute to social unrest and political instability in oil-producing countries.
Impact on the US Dollar:
Weakening Demand:
If oil were priced in other currencies, demand for the US dollar could decrease, potentially leading to a weaker dollar.
Reduced Influence:
The US dollar's role as a global reserve currency could be diminished, impacting the US economy's standing.
Potential Negative Impacts:
A weaker dollar could lead to a decrease in the value of assets held in dollars, impacting the US economy.
Global Implications:
Increased Volatility:
The shift to alternative currencies could introduce greater volatility in the oil market, making it more challenging for businesses to plan and invest.
Financial Instability:
Changes in the global financial system could lead to uncertainty and potentially increase the risk of financial crises.

I don't actually disagree with you but I think another factor to consider at this time is stability. I don't think the world in general has any faith in America's stability in regards to trade or the future of our economy. Not only from that standpoint but also what America will do next in terms of our allies. Once your own allies no longer no believe you will be acting in good faith it undermines your credibility. It's certainly not the only factor as you have pointed out but I thinks it's yet another added ingredient in the stew.

The Atlantic

As America Steps Back, Others Step In

Recently, while in Geneva, I sat down with the ambassador of a closely allied country. In the shadow of the Palais des Nations—the European home of the United Nations—we discussed the state of multilateral diplomacy. At one point, he offered a blunt assessment of America’s diminished presence on the world stage. “It used to be,” he said, “that before we committed to a position on any significant matter, we would wait to see where the United States stood. Now? We really don’t care anymore.”

The remark was particularly jarring because it was intended not as an insult, but as a sincere lament. It underscored that in capitals and conference rooms across the globe, decisions are now being made without American leadership. And while many Americans might think that shift doesn’t matter, it does.

In places like Geneva, decisions are made every week that affect our lives at home, relating to global aviation-safety protocols; pandemic-response standards; food and drug regulation; international trade and customs frameworks; cybersecurity norms; rules governing space, telecommunications standards, environmental safeguards. These aren’t distant, abstract concerns. They influence the price of the goods on our shelves, the safety of our airways, the health of our communities, and the competitiveness of our businesses.

When the United States pulls back or fails to engage, these decisions don’t cease to be made. They’re simply made by others—and, more and more, by those whose values don’t align with ours. China, in particular, is adept at filling vacuums we leave behind, not just with economic leverage, but with bureaucratic muscle and long-term strategic intent. Where we disengage, the Chinese organize. Where we hesitate, they solidify influence. That same diplomat who noted America’s increasing irrelevance pointed to China’s stepped-up engagement in precisely these areas—and its eagerness to shape the rules that govern everything from trade to emerging technologies.

The consequences are not temporary. International standards and agreements, once set, can take years—even decades—to be renegotiated. The absence of American leadership today could mean being bound tomorrow by rules we had no hand in setting.

At its best, U.S. global leadership has been about more than projecting power. It has meant convening allies, reinforcing norms, and defending a rules-based international order that, while imperfect, has broadly served our interests and reflected our values. Walking away from that leadership not only imperils our credibility; it cedes ground to nations eager to reshape the system in ways that diminish liberty, transparency, and accountability.

The good news is that this trajectory can be reversed. But it requires more than rhetoric. It requires showing up. That means filling diplomatic posts quickly and with professionals who are empowered to lead. It means prioritizing our institutions of statecraft, including the State Department, with the seriousness they deserve. And it means recommitting to the alliances and international bodies that magnify our influence rather than dilute it.

I saw the value of diplomacy firsthand during my tenure as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, when Sweden sought NATO membership over Turkey’s objections. At the time, the impulse of the U.S. and its NATO allies was to apply pressure or issue public rebukes. What was needed wasn’t force, however, but diplomacy: persistent, behind-the-scenes engagement that respected Turkey’s security concerns while reinforcing the cohesion of the alliance.

Over 18 months, these negotiations facilitated constitutional changes in Sweden, addressed legitimate Turkish concerns, and helped unlock a long-stalled sale of F-16s to Turkey that enhanced NATO interoperability. In the end, Sweden joined the alliance, Turkey saw its security interests addressed, and the U.S. proved itself a trusted interlocutor. That kind of success—durable, strategic, and built on trust—doesn’t happen without diplomats in the room.

Today, Republicans in Congress need to step forward in defense of U.S. leadership. We can’t expect the Trump administration to reverse course—global disengagement seems to be part of its design. But Congress has tools at its disposal to mitigate the long-term damage: through setting funding priorities, exercising oversight, and engaging in public advocacy for diplomacy and alliance building. With margins so close in both houses, legislators who value U.S. global leadership have significant leverage.

Having run several congressional campaigns, I understand that valuing diplomacy and prioritizing international institutions don’t make for popular political slogans. But with an administration unmoored in its approach to foreign policy, it’s more important than ever for Congress to provide crucial ballast. The recent visit to Ukraine by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal is a perfect example of members of Congress providing that ballast—reassuring our allies that they are still our allies.

American leadership isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice—one we must make again and again, not just for the sake of our standing in the world, but for the practical, everyday interests of American citizens.

We can lead by example. Or we can be led by the ambitions of others. The world won’t wait while we decide.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/america-steps-back-others-step-100000765.html

China’s exports growth missed expectations in May, dragged down by a sharp decline in shipments to the U.S., with analysts saying effects of the Beijing-Washington trade truce will be visible in June data.

Chinese exports to the U.S. plunged 34.5% from a year ago, marking the sharpest drop since February 2020, according to Wind Information, when the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted trade. Imports from the U.S. dropped over 18%, and China’s trade surplus with America shrank by 41.55% year on year to $18 billion.


https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/09/china-may-trade-data-exports-imports-after-tariff-ceasefire-.html



China’s exports rose 4.8% year-on-year in May to $316 billion, falling short of expectations as a 34.4% drop in shipments to the US — the steepest decline in over five years — offset gains in other markets. Imports continued to decline for the third consecutive month, down 3.4%, leaving a trade surplus of $103 billion. Despite a temporary tariff truce, further US tariff hikes could pose challenges in the coming months.

Read the full article for deeper insights into China’s trade outlook: https://trib.al/tDRmxQz

So China's exports still rose by 4.8% year on year in May despite the tariffs.

Theres a sucker born every second.

Hmmmm. I wonder if the import plunge and trade deficit decline had anything to do with huge orders flooding in to beat the tariffs the previous month creating a massive spike ?

I think some of the things we are doing are being done to prevent many of those things from happening.

We have been getting ripped off on trade. We have exported much of our industry at the expense of the American people.

Short term, things could bounce around. And by short term I measure in years...maybe 3-4-5. Billions of investment has been committed from overseas, but you don't build an automobile plant in a year.

Long term I think it will position us well. The next President will see the benefits. Unless the next President screws it up.

Sadly almost half of Americans can't afford to live for this 3,4,5 years. I have no idea how making sure almost half of American families can still afford to live is "screwing things up". While American companies and corporations sent our jobs overseas, presidents of both parties sat back and watched. Now it seems that trump wishes to make the American people pay for what these corporations did. You seem fine with that.

Much like how you have no problem with targeting immigrants while not punishing the very people who hire them which keeps them coming here to begin with. Why is it business never pays the price for the very situations they create in the first pace?

It's always the poor and less fortunate that pays the price tag and you seem fine with that.

It's called capitilism - and you have been brainwashed, this regurgitation of Trump talking points without engaging your intelect is saddening.

I'm going to jump around your post a bit, but I hope my response is clear.

I'm glad you mentioned that short term = years. Whenever you're talking about the economy statewide (moreso the country and globally) scale, nothing functions like a lightswitch. Changes take time to work their way through the system and then bear fruit. It's annoying to debate inflation and overall health of the economy during campaign season because everyone wants to blame/praise the guy in office at the time as if whatever is going on is because of what he decided the day before. So I just wanted to acknowledge you pointing that out and that I appreciate it.

As for the overall point of your message... I guess you choose to be hopeful while I choose to be skeptical. At the end of the day, neither of us truly knows if it's going to work out that way because, as you said, the benefits are going to be years out. I am skeptical because companies send things overseas because of pricing taking priority over quality and knowing where the thing you bought came from. Govt really can't do much to change that... that's up to us as consumers.

It's not an American issue - people around the globe want cheap TVs - white goods - cars - phones ... and while quality might have been a compromise in yesteryear, I think there is every chance that in 2025 we buy better quality units made overseas than we make in the USA. Just my perspective. Maybe you are right to focus on the details - I find it hard to look past the propoganda of a post that says we've been being ripped of on trade for years, a ludicrous claim because we jumped in with both feet and eyes WIDE open, and we will continue to do so. If people are only now in 2025 figuring out that if you buy cheap from overseas it means manufacturing will move overseas, then those people are pretty freaking dim. It's been happening since the 70's.

IMO as per usual there is no moderation or common sense involved here. People make this an all or nothing proposition which is what we are dealing with. In this case it's an "all" proposition. People make it sound as if you are against tariffs if you don't support the "trump tariffs". Yet he has dished out global tariffs on all goods. That's the part that doesn't make sense.

Selective, targeted tariffs on certain goods from certain countries make sense. There are high paying tech jobs that could certainly help our economy. There are some products in other sectors which would provide the same thing. But how many people and what can you afford to pay people manufacturing T shirts and toys? How much increase in price would that cost the average consumer and how many people do you think would be willing to fill these jobs at lower wages?

This entire "place tariffs on everything from everywhere" will only cost American citizens as it pertains to many items included in the tariffs. This is an ill conceived idea with no real concept, thought process or vision other than claiming that "The Unites States is a victim!"

This may not be a popular opinion, but I do believe that only blaming corporations for outsourcing American manufacturing is lazy. If American consumers made manufacturing origin a priority, you'd be damned sure corps would be trying to attract as many customers as possible.

I'm not trying to say that corporate greed and maximizing profits isn't a thing. I'm just saying that anybody complaining about manufacturing jobs leaving the US should also be putting their money where their mouth is (edit: where possible/practicable).

It is 100% both

The issue is that almost half of families in America live paycheck to paycheck. It's not that they wouldn't prefer to buy American goods. It's that in some cases such things as toys and clothing are by and large no longer available but that wages have not kept up with costs to the point they can't afford to purchase them. They don't have enough money to put it where their mouth is.