Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 777 posts

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#311

Post by vkou »

lreeves wrote: post #220
Uvix wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already there in the Constitution - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Unfortunately other countries chose not to require things in writing and were happy with pinky promises that could be reneged.

We (Canada) literally signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement for trade in 2020... with Donald Trump. Trump this February said "Who would ever sign a thing like this?" and proceeded to make up the story about fentanyl coming from Canada as a pretense to ignore this deal. So there was certainly more than a pinky promise. Additionally your senate just signed law to repeal the tariffs against Canada specificall…

> Additionally your senate just signed law to repeal the tariffs against Canada specifically so I don't know what other receipts or paperwork you'd like here.

That bill won't pass the crazy house, but yes, CUSMA was signed law.

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#312

Post by mathfailure »

Majromax wrote: post #143
ein0p wrote: post #15

WAI. Trump is crashing the T-note yield to refinance $9T (which is how much US debt is going to mature in 2025) at a lower rate. That, for those of us who know arithmetic, is approximately one quarter of all US debt. It seems to be working.

> Trump is crashing the T-note yield to refinance $9T (which is how much US debt is going to mature in 2025) at a lower rate Even if this were intended (unlikely), destroying $6T of notional stock market value so far to save $270b/yr of interest (if 10-year yields drop by 3%, which hasn't happened yet ) is a bad trade.

National stock market is owned by people, but the national debt is owned (and has to be payed) by the government. Basically, the government is just milking the reach now to lower gov's national debt. Poorer people rather win from this (even if no manufacturers come to U.S. to avoid tariff barriers, which some manufacturers will and which will be another small benefit for the poorer (more jobs)).

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#314

Post by sebmellen »

zip1234 wrote: post #286
sebmellen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right about all you say. But the US has struggled to implement even the simplest forms of industrial policy because other countries are so extremely price-competitive, and our markets so unbridled, that our “elites” have eroded our industrial base to drive shareholder returns. If not through tariffs, how else do you force reindustrialization? Industrial policy will always fail if it’s driven by a chimeric poli…

US manufacturing is at an all time high in terms of output. Less people are needed in that sector because it's an area where automation is highest. I agree that there is a national security reason to have tariffs to protect some manufacturing, but that should be a precision targeted tariff if anything.

Your level of paranoia and aggression will vary depending on how hawkish you are. If you’re more hawkish you’ll be more aggressive and make your move as early as possible, and you’ll also tolerate a lot more pain to achieve your goal. Bessent seems pretty determined.

I do think it’s clear that our industrial capacities have eroded. Look at our infrastructure compared to China. We lag on every metric: transportation initiatives, building projects, solar production, new energy plants, and so on. Manufacturing is just 1/10th of the “full stack”.

I’m not making any political commentary as to whether tariffs are the right move or not, I’m only explaining the line of reasoning.

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#315

Post by graeme »

walterbell wrote: post #273
graeme wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the tariffs were calculated based on dividing goods trade deficit by overall goods trade. If you run that formula for Canada and Mexico, the number would be LOWER than the tariffs already imposed. So they had to leave Canada and Mexico off to keep things looking consistent. You can confirm here from USTR stats: https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada#:~:text=C...

https://www.ft.com/content/96bc1b74-14dd-47ab-8bbd-1add97a2a... > both leaders claim their approaches have helped them this week avoid what Trump calls “liberation day” tariffs.. Mexican officials on Thursday said the strategy had borne fruit and they would focus on getting an even better deal. Economy minister Marcelo Ebrard said: “It's a great achievement, I’d say, from the point of view of where we started not lon…

You've completely ignored what I wrote. The formula the white house used to set tariffs would result in lower tariffs for Canada and Mexico. If both countries were included in the formula Trump would have to cut announced tariffs on both countries.

Do you dispute this? It's trivial to calculate.

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#316

Post by colechristensen »

asdev wrote: post #91

Tech really needs to fall another 50% at least. I think when the big AI bust happens(unless it's happening now), we will see that

The covid response of printing trillions of dollars and other currencies around the world meant that there was way more money and it had to end up somewhere.

There's just way more money to invest than there are productive companies to invest in. So you get crazy P/E ratios in the best bets available.

The "fix" is to inflate that money away (or maybe to tax it and pay down deficits?) but it's not an easy monetary policy or a familiar one.

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#317

Post by Vegenoid »

lovecg wrote: post #289
Vegenoid wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have repeatedly seen Trump say something that sounds ridiculous, and his supporters say "that won't actually happen, and if it does I won't support it", and then he does it and his supporters support it. He has recently said he may try for another term as president, and confirmed "No, no I'm not joking". If you don't take his threats seriously by now, and the willingness of the GOP to get behind whatever he wants,…

Wouldn’t he have to get on the ballot in all the swing states at least? What if some states refuse to let him run? I can’t see California registering him for example, but that wouldn’t really matter of course.

Only if he tries to get a 3rd term by a fair election. The more realistic way to it happening is by hijacking the electoral process. There are a number of ways to do this, such as by claiming there was fraud and thereby having the justification to modify how "electors" [0] should cast their vote. This is exactly what was tried in the 2020 election.

Really, it's just an "if enough people in power and in general go along with it, then it works" kind of thing. The current trend in the GOP is to whip and/or expel those who do not fully support Trump. What happens if half of the elected politicians, most of their constituents, and most of the appointed government officials, decide that Trump is staying in office? No one knows. The power of words on paper only goes as far as people let it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg...

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#318

Post by vkou »

peteforde wrote: post #295
yojo wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When he started with a limited set of tariffs on Canada/Mexico/China it sort of made sense as a bullying move. The administration at least had the bandwidth to conduct three sets of negotiations. But it’s essentially impossible to negotiate 180 deals simultaneously. No way does Tunisia get even five minutes to pitch a deal - the simultaneous imposition of tariffs effectively DDOS’d the negotiation team.

I'd love to hear more about what sort of sense these tariffs made at any stage since they were announced.

The sense is that it's just another day in the life of a cult of action for action's sake.

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#319

Post by zip1234 »

ViktorRay wrote: post #22
beloch wrote: post #8

This is an inherently political subject, but I would appreciate a dispassionate argument explaining how this could be even remotely good for the U.S.'s economy in a way that is light on MAGA ideology and doesn't simply claim the overwhelming majority of economists are dumb. I'm simply not seeing even a glimmer of a possible upside right now. I see even less possibility of an upside for those of us North of the border…

In the long run it could lead to more fair trade deals. Today’s episode of Newshour at the BBC World Service had a conversation between a BBC journalist and a German CDU politician where they talked about how the tariffs on cars from Germany entering America has historically been lower than the tariffs on cars from America entering Germany. The CDU politician was telling the BBC that he hoped maybe a resolution for a…

What is a fair trade deal? Levying a 40% tariff on a country that had a 1.5% tariff? There's not much to gain and a LOT to lose

Re: Trump's Tariffs Wipe Out over $6T on Wall Street in Epic Two-Day Rout

#320

Post by lucasyvas »

lreeves wrote: post #10

You know the craziest thing about watching this as an outsider in Canada is that we as a nation are losing one reliable trading partner (and obviously losing an ally but that's another conversation). Germany - losing a trade partner. Japan? And so on. But the US has lost 180 reliable trading partners. You're already seeing in the first week burgeoning trade alliances between nations who wouldn't have cooperated befor…

> Of course I'm sure some people would claim this is 4D chess

You mean idiots of course.

Post reply on HN