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

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

#371

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:26 AM UTC

api wrote: post #169

lenerdenator wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The slim hope to a voting bloc in the Upper Midwest that maybe, somehow, this will bring back manufacturing. They've tried everything else; why…

I’m from Southern Ohio which was not hit as hard, but I know the attitude well. I call it “rust belt rage.” I remember during the first Trump election hearing quotes like “I hope he does as much damage as possible” and “I can’t throw a bomb into the White House but I can throw a Trump.” Lots more like that. The attitude in that region of the country is absolute seething rage. A lot of people from Northern Ohio, Weste…

I'm from between Cleveland and Youngstown. They could have kept voting for Traficant and Cafaro if they wanted to give middle fingers and throw bombs.

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

#372

Post by Majromax » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:27 AM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #196

Majromax wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know that a quotation is not necessarily an endorsement, but this is a fantastically short-sighted idea. > it becomes increasingly burdensome for the United States to finance the provision of reserve assets How dare countries want pictures of dead Presidents so badly that... they're willing to send real goods to the United States for its consumption, with no expectation of reciprocation. > and the defense umbrella…

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…

> Industrial policy will always fail if it’s driven by a chimeric political system

I think you're begging the question here that a chimeric political system can craft an effective, long-term tariff policy if it can't craft a long-term industrial policy.

In both cases, the operative phrase is long-term. IF they're to be effective, either set of policies needs to look a decade ahead, and an industrial policy still wins compared to shotgun tariffs.

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

#373

Post by joering2 » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:27 AM UTC

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #137

jarym wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best understanding of the administration's psyche is that they're determined to have more manufacturing happen in the US - regardless of the economic impact. It still doesn't make sense though - there's a reason sneaker makers like to have kids in places like Vietnam make shoes for a few cents per hour. It's because no one in the US would work gruelling hours for such little pay! POTUS wants to 'level the field' b…

Also would require near-certainty that these conditions will last far, far longer than 4 years (or 4 days, per earlier tariff tantrums). Especially for the most important industries like semiconductors, steel, oil, which require massive capex.

You said the most important part. Trump and Co believes that a car or semi factories grow overnight like mushrooms in the forest. If a CEO of a semiconductor company would decide to start building a billion dollar plant in the USA, which would take 6-8 years to built, knowing that new President from the other much different party might take over in less than 4 years, that CEO would probably endup being sued by shareholders for jeopardizing the company's bottom line.

Noone in their right mind will start building factories in USA because of temporary tariffs that all might go away with an executive order and a stroke of a pen comes January 2029.

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

#374

Post by yojo » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

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.

I’m not advocating for or defending them, but he bullied some immigration related concessions out of Mexico back in February in the first round of this stuff. You could plausibly call it a negotiation tactic. The latest is just pure madness any way you look at it.

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

#375

Post by outer_web » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

mathfailure wrote: post #231

travisgriggs wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the isolationist era that followed World War One clearly calmed the rest of the world, so that the various "expansionist" regimes felt less threatened and just let their neighbors be. History rhymes with itself.

It's different now, since at that time there were no weapons of total annihilation (and now there are quite some). That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war. The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety.…

Haha please describe the NATO invasion of Russia. This sounds entertaining.

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

#376

Post by clipsy » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #315

walterbell wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're making the mistake of believing that anyone left in the MAGA camp is arguing in good faith.

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

#377

Post by linotype » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

Aren’t the tariffs that the US is imposing half of what other countries have? Or was that fake news from the admin?

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

#378

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #287

anigbrowl wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but vetoes are politically very expensive. Even if he threatens to veto, Congress should still do it. Not doing obvious things because they might run into opposition/problems is a recipe for more and worse of the same.

> Maybe, but vetoes are politically very expensive. As are felony convictions, top secret docs in a bathroom at your house, sexual assault settlements, and the hundred other career-ending scandals the guy has survived without a scratch so far.

Agreed, but maybe Congress takes action on one thing they'll find it in themselves to take action on a second thing. Having been in a lot of real fights, standing there and doing nothing is almost invariably the worst choice.

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

#379

Post by travisgriggs » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

calmbell wrote: post #240

travisgriggs wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The boundaries of what is politics and what isn't is difficult to suss (for me) these days. I personally do not believe this is good. But I have a theory on why those that do think so. I'm 54. It follows that I see a number of people my age. I'm churchgoing, as well as involved in a number of clubs (pilots, rowing, legos, etc). So I get to rub shoulders with a decent amount of people. And especially a bunch of older…

I was shocked to learn that 75-year-old white men supported Kamala Harris at a significantly higher rate than 20-year-old white men: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... (search for "75-year-old white men").

That may be, but if you run the numbers, the older generations overwhelmingly put this administration in power. If for some reason you weren’t able to vote after 65, it would have been close. And if you weren’t able to vote over 55, it would have gone largely the other way.

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

#380

Post by codezero » Sat, Apr 05, 2025, 2:29 AM UTC

mathfailure wrote: post #231

travisgriggs wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the isolationist era that followed World War One clearly calmed the rest of the world, so that the various "expansionist" regimes felt less threatened and just let their neighbors be. History rhymes with itself.

It's different now, since at that time there were no weapons of total annihilation (and now there are quite some). That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war. The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety.…

These are old and tired russian talking points. How exactly is russia, a nuclear power, threatened by Ukraine? They didn’t respond at all to Sweden and Finland joining NATO, despite Finland’s much larger land border with russia.

russia also annexed and occupied Crimea, and at the same time destroyed or stole the entirely of Ukraine’s Black Sea fleet. They moved their own nuclear weapons to CSTO partner state (and vassal) Belarus, pushing them closer to NATO borders.

no matter what justifications russia claims, their actions are what matter, they have no desire for any form of modern diplomacy. Do you remember how long they pretended Wagner mercenaries weren’t directly funded and supplied by the state?