Yep as hard as I struggle I totally fail to understand what else could make sense than this being sthg deeply personal for him, a way to vent his anger against the world or god knows what.
Ya can't make this shit up. World-renowned economist shocked to discover HIS research was the foundation for Trump's tariffs gives frightening verdict A world-renowned economist was left stunned when he realized that President Donald Trump used his research to leverage his lofty worldwide tariffs - and claimed the administration grossly overcalculated how much each country owes. University of Chicago Economics Professor Brett Neiman, a Biden-era Treasury official, said he was confused when the president held up his sign showing the amount of tariffs he would impose on 60 countries last Wednesday in what Trump dubbed Liberation Day. 'My first question, when the White House unveiled its tariff regime was: How on Earth did they calculate such huge rates?' he wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. Neiman - who has prestigious degrees from Harvard, Oxford, and UPenn - had his question answered the next day, when he realized that the ordeal was 'personal.' 'The Office of the US Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of their numbers,' he said. 'But they got it wrong. Very wrong.' Trump's 10 percent 'baseline' tariff began Saturday, hitting all US imports except goods from Mexico and Canada. Further tariffs on goods from 57 trading partners, including the European Union and China, are set to go into effect on Wednesday. The tariffs have triggered market meltdowns across the globe - sparking calls from his billionaire allies, including Elon Musk and Bill Ackman, to rethink the strategy. Neiman explained that the Trump administration erroneously added a 25 percent rate to the formula Neiman and his colleagues had created - meaning that the tariff rates Trump imposed should all be four times less. 'Where does 25 percent come from?' Neiman asked, rhetorically. 'Is it related to our work? I don't know.' 'Our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller - perhaps one-fourth as large.' Neiman also hit out at the president for leveraging the 'reciprocal tariffs' in an effort to end trade deficits with the country's major trading partners. 'Is this a reasonable goal? It is not,' he declared in his op-ed, arguing that trade balances are unavoidable and natural. 'Americans spend more on clothing made in Sri Lanka than Sri Lankans spend on American pharmaceuticals and gas turbines. So what?' he explained. 'Not every country has similar natural resources or development levels,' Neiman continued. 'The deficit numbers don't suggest, let alone prove, unfair competition.' The economist also quoted Nobel laureate Robert Solow to explain his reasoning. Solow had once said, 'I have a chronic deficit with my barber, who doesn't buy a darned thing from me.' 'Mr. Solow also surely ran a chronic surplus with his students and these imbalances reveal nothing about trade barriers in haircare or higher education, nor would they speak to his financial health.' Neiman concluded by saying Trump's tariffs 'have enormous implications for workers, firms, consumers and stock markets around the globe' and warned that they will 'bring average tariff rates to their highest level in 100 years. 'And despite being billed as a "do unto others" trade policy, they are not calculated in line with the Bible's golden rule,' the economist noted, saying foreign tariffs on American goods are nowhere near the levels Trump is pushing. He said by saying he wants Trump's tariffs policy and methodology to be scrapped entirely. Barring that, he said, 'the administration should divide its results by four.' On Monday, European stocks suffered their worst one-day fall since the start of the COVID pandemic and Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 index closed nearly 8 percent lower than on Friday, while the broader Topix finished down 7.7 percent. Economists across the world now worry about a global economic downturn, with betting markets now showing a 62 percent chance that the U.S. will plunge into a recession this year. The odds of such an economic drop spiked when Trump announced the tariffs last Wednesday - when the odds of a recession went from 39 percent to 49 percent, according to Polymarket. And on Sunday the chances reached a high of 66 percent, showing a whopping two in three chances that a recession is nearing. Many world leaders have now come to the negotiating table, with European Union officials announcing Monday that they have proposed a 'zero-zero' tariff deal in which neither the United States nor the Eurozone would leverage the fines on industrial goods. Under the European Union's deal, cars and other goods - including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, rubber and plastic machinery - would not face tariffs in the United States or in any of the Eurozone countries, according to Politico. The idea had been backed by DOGE Chief Elon Musk, who told a political rally last week that he hopes to see a 'zero tariff situation' between the US and Europe to create a free trade zone. Shark Tank star Kevin O'Leary pushed the president to take the deal - which he called an 'off-ramp.' At the same time, Volkswagen announced on Monday that Audi is holding its cars at US ports - preventing them from entering the US market. Yet Trump has remained firm, telling reporters that he is 'not looking at' pausing any of the reciprocal tariffs despite a now-debunked report he was considering a 90-day halt. Trump also threatened to increase the tariffs on China - after Beijing retaliated against the US president with an import levy of 34 percent. Trump vowed to hit the Chinese with another 50 percent unless they remove theirs by Tuesday. 'If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8th, 2025, the United States will impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50 percent effective April 9th,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social account. The president also warned that negotiations and trade talks with China would be canceled if they refused to back down. 'Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated!' he wrote. But Trump's strong stance has apparently angered some of his allies, including Musk and billionaire Bill Ackman. Ben Shapiro, a long-time supporter of the president, also smashed the illusion that tariffs are a good business deal for Americans to smithereens, with a startling insight on Monday: 'Musk is right. Musk happens to be 100 percent right about this.' Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, similarly used his shareholder letter to warn that Trump's levies would result in 'inflationary outcome' both on imports and prices in the United States. 'The recent tariffs will likely increase inflation and are causing many to consider a greater probability of a recession,' he told shareholders, according to the Washington Post. Some Republican senators have also voiced their support for a measure that would require the president to inform Congress of upcoming tariffs within 48 hours of them being implemented. It would also mandate that the tariffs need approval from Congress within 60 days of them being imposed and that Congress could end any tariff at any time. Meanwhile, a libertarian group funded by Leonardo Leo and Charles Koch has launched a legal challenge against Trump's tariffs, The Guardian reports. The New Civil Liberties alliance filed the suit to prevent Trump from imposing tariffs on imports from China, arguing that doing so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is unlawful. It was filed on behalf of Simplified, a Florida-based home goods company whose business is heavily reliant on imports from China. The suit argues that the president exceeded his powers in invoking the IEEPA to justify its tariffs. 'This statute authorizes specific emergency actions like imposing sanctions or freezing assets to protect the United States from foreign threats,' the group said. 'It does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In its nearly 50-year history, no other president - including President Trump in her first term - has even tried to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs.' The coalition also argues that the power to impose tariffs lies not with the president, but with Congress - and warns that the tariffs Trump has imposed could put him at risk of a Supreme Court case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmon...rett-Neiman-miscalculation-Trump-tariffs.html In a nutshell, if the entire input is completely, totally and utterly flawed and downright nonsensical BS... that exact same BS is the ONLY output possible. No two ways about that outside of George Orwell.
The economist also quoted Nobel laureate Robert Solow to explain his reasoning. Solow had once said, 'I have a chronic deficit with my barber, who doesn't buy a darned thing from me.' 'Mr. Solow also surely ran a chronic surplus with his students and these imbalances reveal nothing about trade barriers in haircare or higher education, nor would they speak to his financial health.' Haha, from the article, THAT is EXACTLY what it all boils down to, Trump NOT understanding that or pretending to not understand to wage his personal war against the world.
MAGA ally Ben Shapiro has stunningly turned on President Trump and urged him to listen to Elon Musk's criticism of his tariff policy. Shapiro, a long-time supporter of the president, smashed the illusion that tariffs are a good business deal for Americans to smithereens, with a startling insight on Monday: 'Musk is right. Musk happens to be 100 percent right about this.' The Tesla CEO has been in lockstep with the president on key voter issues since he returned to the White House, but came out swinging against tariffs and exposed a feud with the key advisor who helped bring them to life. Shapiro gave a blisteringly blunt message to Trump, urging him to do 'exactly' what Musk tells him to do in regard to his tariff policy - just days after global markets faced devastating downturns because of his decisions. Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro has been engaged in a public war of words with Musk since the White House unveiled his controversial reciprocal tariff policy, which sparked market chaos and global fears of a recession. Musk revealed on Saturday that he hopes the United States will achieve zero-zero tariff agreements with major trade partners. 'Musk himself suggested that he wants a zero tariff situation, which again, this is the good explanation for why you would do the tariff game,' Shapiro said. 'I urge the president to do precisely what Musk is saying here. Go to zero with all these countries. Go to zero.' Shapiro added: 'That's a win, take the win, move on. That would be good for the economy. At the polar opposite end of the debate is Navarro, who has long championed tariffs as the path to success and helped shape the policy with Trump. Musk called Navarro out on X, publicly telling his followers he 'ain't built s**t.' He then responded to a post on X that noted Navarro has a PhD in economics from Harvard. 'A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing. Results in the ego/brains>>1 problem,' Musk wrote. Despite Navarro denying a feud, Shapiro said it was abundantly clear that there is 'an open battle between Elon and Navarro.' Weighing in on the feud, Shapiro simply said: 'Navarro is wrong, Elon is right.' 'It's that simple. The reality is that Navarro's trade prescriptions is this giant trade war where he believes the tariffs are in and of themselves good, not to get to zero. That is a bad economic policy.' 'The way that it was rolled out, with essentially kind of a surprise announcement... replete with contradictory justifications, statistics that are labeled one thing but are really not that thing. It opens itself up to all sorts of critiques from every side.' While on the All In podcast, Shapiro noted that Trump has made himself open to ridicule for taxing the McDonald Islands which has no human population and is inhabited by penguins. Shapiro is not the only MAGA loyalist who is concerned about Trump's latest policy. Fox News host Jesse Watters addressed Trump's decision to go golfing as the stock markets plummeted at the weekend, suggesting the president's behavior in a moment of national volatility would be indefensible - if it were happening under a Democrat. And Wall Street trader Bill Ackman, one of Trump's most faithful backers in the financial world, said on Sunday night that the president needed to put his tariff war on hold or risk a ‘self-induced, economic nuclear winter.' Texas Senator Ted Cruz - who ran for re-election calling himself Trump's 'strongest supporter' in the Senate - warned how the tariffs could 'hurt jobs and hurt America.' Shapiro's criticism of the tariffs began almost instantly, last week noting they were 'probably unconstitutional' and had been 'dropped on the market unilaterally.' '[It's] one of the biggest tax increases on American consumers in the history of America,' he said. He added that trade wars are 'not good' or 'easy to win' if 'you don't have a plan' and that trade deficits aren't important, noting America's trading surplus was high during the entirety of the Great Depression. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...stinging-tariff-takedown-reveals-control.html Exactly. Tariffs are one GIGANTIC TAX on YOUR OWN CITIZENS. And Trade Deficits or Surpluses are largely meaningless. Big Beautiful Trade Surplus during the Entirety of the Big Beautiful Great Depression Everyone Agrees Was a Greatly Beautiful Time !!! Haha. What Trump wants. Just Unbelievable. Nobody would believe this crap in a movie.
If it becomes clear that the tariffs are only a means to obtain further concessions, namely to demand a trade equilibrium from all those affected, it will be a huge issue for most of Asian nations, not just China which has the capacity to stop trading with the US. But Vietnam would have to buy $104B worth of US products, Japan $71B, Taiwan $47B, Thailand $40B... enormous quantities of goods that zero% tariffs could never absorb. The same holds true for some EU countries like Germany ($82B) and Ireland ($65B) or Switzerland ($24B). Clearly this will not happen and we can expect tense negotiations in the coming months. It's a major gamble to believe that somehow these nations will agree to increase their US imports. More likely, they will reduce their exports to the US and look to diversify their trading partners. China could very well offer to import what they can't export to the US... What are the consequences to the rest of the world? Trade will slow significantly, global unemployment will rise, GDP will drop. The responsible party will be the US and we can expect global boycotts of American goods, which will accentuate the trade imbalance. What about the US? We should expect far fewer products in our stores, at significantly higher prices. Some few businesses will thrive as exports increase to the countries that cannot afford not to sign a deal and many more will suffer retaliation from countries that won't accept being bullied. Unemployment will rise, GDP will fall and the stock market will drop accordingly. It is possible that countries that the US has a surplus with (Australia, S. Korea, UK and many others) may become middlemen for those having a deficit. For example, Australia may start shipping Ozzie Nike to the US, originally made in Vietnam. In any case, this is wild shit going on!
LMAO, talking of cry baby, doesn't this describe Trump and his behavior to a tee: aggrieved: Similar and opposite words Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more adjective feeling resentment at having been unfairly treated. Similar: resentful, affronted, indignant, disgruntled, discontented, angry, distressed, unhappy, disturbed, anguished, hurt, pained, upset, offended, piqued, riled, nettled, vexed, irked, irritated, annoyed, put out, chagrined, peeved, miffed, in a huff, cheesed off, sore, wronged, injured, abused, harmed, mistreated, ill-used, maltreated, ill-treated, maligned, vulgar slang: pissed off, pissed. I'll add yet another: entitled.
Trade imbalances will happen. Not every country has the same resources nor consumer base or production base. However, it is unfair if they charge tariffs to protect their markets which is what all of them have been doing. So, to be free trade-true free trade everyone should go to zero tariffs. Trump is forcing that by extreme tariffs. It is a negotiating thing. IMO The world should open up their markets to American goods and America open their markets to all other countries without pretenses. Each buy what they "need" or "want" from each other at zero tariffs, zero other trade barriers ...etc. That is FREE TRADE. The issue of manufacturing base is another thing that would have to be figured out. That is how each country will go about attracting foreign investment for manufacturing purposes.
AI reply: YouTube's impact on a country's trade balance is indirect and primarily related to the flow of goods and services, not directly to the platform itself. Here's a breakdown: Indirect Economic Impact: YouTube's influence on trade is primarily through its effects on economic activities, such as advertising revenue for businesses, the creation of content that can be sold globally, and the promotion of products and services. No Direct Trade Calculation: YouTube, as a platform, is not a good or service that is directly exported or imported. Therefore, it is not included in the calculation of the balance of trade, which focuses on the value of goods and services exchanged between countries. Focus on Economic Activity: Instead, the impact of YouTube is assessed through its influence on the overall economy, including the production and consumption of goods and services, which can then impact trade. Example: If a company uses YouTube to advertise its products, this can lead to increased sales, which may involve the export of goods or the import of raw materials, impacting the trade balance. ------ So, while the US chose to contract its manufacturing to cheaper labor countries, it then switched its economic development to focus on the tech sector, from products to dematerialized media, from measurable trade balance goods and services to "it doesn't count". And now we bitch. YouTube? It's not a service because it's free! It's just a US brand built and made available around the globe, just like Chrome, Gmail, Maps, Docs or Sheet (sticking to Google to make my point but there are many companies offering free versions of their products, I mean their "it doesn't count" things.) By being free, these dematerialized non product or service things not only prevent competition, but they don't enter in the balance of trade calculations. But shouldn't they be? Shouldn't they be assigned a fair value to plug in the trade numbers and, why not, assign tariffs and taxes by importing countries? 50 million google accounts in Vietnam at $500 each... There's $25B off that trade imbalance, and that's only for Google...