Trump's Trade War Escalates as China Retaliates with 34% Tariffs

Post by goatlover » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 5:39 PM UTC

wtcactus wrote: post #163

goatlover wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully so, but I'm not certain elections will be the same as they have. There's reason to believe Trump has no intention of leaving office, and the Republican party has not intention of losing power. This is their chance to remake America long term, and they can't really do that if it gets overturned every 2-4 years.

Democrats have been saying exactly the same since Bush Junior was elected: "OMG, this will surely become an autocracy by the end of his mandate! There's no way we will ever have democratic elections again!" Really, I don't like Trump, I think he is a buffoon, but Democrats are so tiresome, calling wolf every time they don't get what they want. I know toddlers with more self restrain.

Post by _t9ow » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #166

wtcactus wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats have been saying exactly the same since Bush Junior was elected: "OMG, this will surely become an autocracy by the end of his mandate! There's no way we will ever have democratic elections again!" Really, I don't like Trump, I think he is a buffoon, but Democrats are so tiresome, calling wolf every time they don't get what they want. I know toddlers with more self restrain.

Trump himself, out of his own mouth, with his own tongue, using the air from the breathe inside his lungs, has literally and explicitly with no ambiguities said on multiple occasions that he wants to violate the constitution and have a third term. Republican leaders are humoring the idea.

Post by tim333 » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 6:11 PM UTC

mppm wrote: post #136

One thing that I'd like to inject into this discussion, is that the nominal trade imbalance is not the only relevant figure, and maybe not the most important one. For many goods, there is a very strong disconnect between the market value (the lowest price you can offer a group of suppliers competing against each other) and what one might call, for lack of a better word, true value (the price you'd be willing to pay i…

Post by km144 » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 6:20 PM UTC

vdupras wrote: post #67

ajross wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they can sell it there for more money than it can be sold locally So, just to be clear here: you want Utah farmers to foot the bill for the trade war? If they are forced to sell locally for less, they're the ones losing money. Utahns end up poorer in this scenario. Obviously in a trade war, everyone ends up poorer. It's just simple math. It's absolutely dumbfounding the extent to which people have simply decided to…

I don't think it was OPs point. OP's point is that agricultural exporters in Utah profits on externalizations (aquifer depletion), which impoverishes everybody depending on that aquifer. When you come to the realization that you can't drink money, this comes as good news.

Post by Matthyze » Fri, Apr 04, 2025, 6:31 PM UTC

Trasmatta wrote: post #71

yladiz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the only solution, but it is one, as we saw back in the first Trump administration and their tariffs on, and the resulting counter tariffs from, China. It will almost certainly dramatically reduce demand for crops like this from the US, which will lead to less farmers (as many leave the business or go bankrupt) and ultimately less water usage by the farmers.

What does US farmers going bankrupt solve?