What can we do but...we thought the world was ending then too CCR LIVE in Oakland, CA January 1970 - 'Keep On Chooglin'
If it’s not the tariffs today, it’ll be something else tomorrow. Trump really thinks smart people are stupid and he is smart when he is actually stupid. So not only is he predisposed to be against smart policy in an imperfect world, he’s inclined to do stupid things thinking the world will react as he expects. I would like to just say this is NOT about fair trade or free trade, or trade balance. Tariffs are a means to an end for Trump. He truly wants to shift the funding of the government from income taxes to more consumption taxes. This will move a significant amount of government funding to consumers, aka the working stiff while the wealthy get massive reductions in their taxes.
Interesting. Still, the wealthy have mentioned a fear of "pitchforks", they should know they can't keep driving inequality growth forever...
Imagine a law firm being extorted for free legal services as long as they follow the president's policies and positions? In the U.S...
I can't take this level of retarded. My broken leg bone aches and I just don't want to deal with any of this shit. However you have to or... This is going to be your wealth manager when you get back after handing it over. This level of inconvenience is making me furious.
MEXICO CITY, April 3 (Reuters) - Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Thursday celebrated the preferential tariff treatment that Mexico receives under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), after Mexico was excluded from U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping new tariffs. So tariffs threatened against Mexico....except Mexico already has preferential treatment under the USMCA which....trump negotiated....so they pay no tariffs... but fucktard GOP believes trump punishing Mexico with tariffs... when did you all get so stupid...
I just asked computer to analyse this which the WH say is how they calculated the tariffs. 'It looks like a very simplified partial-equilibrium approach, the kind of formula you’d see in a basic undergrad trade textbook rather than in a nuanced policy model. Here’s why it might strike you as too basic: Single Elasticity, Single Pass-Through They’re using a single elasticity () and a single pass-through rate () to capture how tariffs affect import volumes and prices. In reality, different products and industries have very different elasticities and pass-through rates. Ignores General Equilibrium Effects The text itself even says “assuming offsetting exchange rate and general equilibrium effects are small enough to be ignored.” That’s a huge simplification. Trade policies can shift currency values, relative wages, capital flows, and so on—those effects can’t really be waved away if you’re trying to do a comprehensive analysis. No Dynamic/Feedback Loops A simple formula like this doesn’t account for retaliation by trading partners, supply chain disruptions, or long-term shifts in production. All these feedback effects matter in the real world. One-Size-Fits-All Approach By focusing on a single “” for a country, they’re effectively treating the entire basket of imports and exports as one uniform good. This is unrealistic because trade is made up of countless sectors and products, each responding differently to tariffs. Partial-Equilibrium Mindset This formula looks at how one change in tariffs might alter one country’s import volume, holding everything else constant. But in practice, changes in trade flows for one product (or country) ripple through the economy. Why Might They Use This? It’s easy to explain and implement politically—“We export X, import Y, so we need to raise tariffs by Z.” It’s a quick, back-of-the-envelope way to get a rough sense of what a “reciprocal tariff” might look like if you’re ignoring deeper economic complexities. Bottom Line This formula is more of a simplified theoretical illustration than a robust, real-world model. Serious trade policy analysis usually involves complex multi-sector models, or at least partial-equilibrium models broken down by product categories—not a single blanket equation for everything. " I guess the Greek letters terribly impressed Trump. Oh and Gemini looked at it and added: " Further Expansion on the Limitations: * Ignoring Welfare Effects: The formula focuses solely on achieving a bilateral trade balance of zero, without considering the welfare implications of tariffs. Tariffs can lead to deadweight losses, reducing overall economic efficiency. * Neglecting Political Economy: Trade policies are not solely determined by economic considerations. Political factors, such as lobbying by special interest groups, can also play a significant role. * Ignoring Uncertainty: The formula assumes that all parameters are known with certainty. In reality, trade flows are subject to various uncertainties, such as fluctuations in demand, supply shocks, and policy changes. * Lack of Endogeneity: The formula treats imports and exports as exogenous variables, meaning they are determined outside the model. In reality, trade flows are endogenous, meaning they are influenced by other variables within the economy. * Ignoring Product Differentiation: The formula assumes that all goods are homogeneous, meaning they are perfect substitutes. In reality, goods are differentiated by quality, brand, and other characteristics. Conclusion: While the simplified formula may provide a rough estimate of the tariff required to achieve a bilateral trade balance of zero, it is not a reliable tool for policy analysis. A more nuanced approach that takes into account the complexities of international trade is needed to accurately assess the impacts of trade policies. Your analysis demonstrates a clear understanding of the limitations of simplified economic models and the importance of considering the broader economic context when evaluating policy proposals. Bottom Line This isn't an academic model intended for policy research; it’s a politically driven calculation. By using a basic formula, the administration can justify their tariffs with a neat, digestible number, even if that number doesn't capture the full complexity of international trade. Essentially, they're picking a trade war strategy that looks simple on paper, but its real-world implications could be wildly different and much more disruptive."
It’s like a cargo cult version of economics, if it looks complicated, surely it must be right because it has fancy Greek letters. It can’t possibly just be a very, very simple division. They’re treating international trade as a zero-sum equation (the only thing Trump understands), which is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to disasters like the Great Depression era tariffs. The world isn’t static, and every country hit by these tariffs will react, often in ways that are worse for the U.S. than the initial trade imbalance. This is what happens when economic policy is driven by people who think looking smart is the same as being smart.