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

US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#681

Post by locallost »

boringg wrote: post #671
TaurenHunter wrote: post #599

I don't see anyone mentioning that the United States needs to manage its massive national debt, currently in the trillions, by issuing Treasury securities. These securities mature at varying intervals and require continuous "rolling" or refinancing to pay off old debt with new borrowing. Significant rollovers are expected from April through September 2025, with additional short-term maturities due by June. Higher int…

Many critical flaws. Your getting lost confusing the forest for the trees. For starters you are focusing on the % on the interest payments which is a line item. However when all of your allies stop buying your goods and services you run into bigger problems. Bonus problem: If one of your internal metrics is that you want to have a trade deficit but nobody to sell to because you have created a hostile environment for…

Not all of your allies, EVERYBODY.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#682

Post by 52-6F-62 »

vFunct wrote: post #15

Trump really thinks America is in the 1950's. He thinks people want to work at factories doing manual labor. He doesn't understand that we DON'T want to work at factories. Americans like our plush corporate office jobs building intellectual property. We aren't oxen doing physical labor. And we designed it that way. We pay thousands of dollars to each citizen in our public schools to teach them calculus, literature, w…

Pretty sure the broadcast plan as been to make more Americans oxen for the cart…

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#683

Post by cryptonector »

kogus wrote: post #639
TaurenHunter wrote: post #599

I don't see anyone mentioning that the United States needs to manage its massive national debt, currently in the trillions, by issuing Treasury securities. These securities mature at varying intervals and require continuous "rolling" or refinancing to pay off old debt with new borrowing. Significant rollovers are expected from April through September 2025, with additional short-term maturities due by June. Higher int…

I agree with you. To just offer a counterpoint, I sometimes see quotes like this one: But plenty of economists looked at the economic hole left by the 2008 financial crisis, and concluded the stimulus policies on the table weren't nearly big enough to fill it. The size of the hole is all that matters. Whatever level of deficit spending is required to fill it is the right level of deficit spending.[1] or this one: We…

> I would also point out that back when we ran briefly ran a surplus in the late 1990s, economists were not exclaiming about how terrible this was, or how paying off the debt represented a missed opportunity or a catastophe in the making. Everyone agreed at that time that surpluses were good, and that paying down the debt was good. The current "this is fine" thinking smacks of economists who have a predisposition to accept and justify the status quo, whether it is objectively good or not.

Oh? I remember all the teeth mashing about all those funds who have to buy treasuries and now what are they gonna doooo! And how this is unprecedented and how are the markets going to reacccct! Numerous articles about that sort of thing in The Economist and various other outlets.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#684

Post by wat10000 »

lumb63 wrote: post #625

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well…

Globalization is fine. Wages in this country are quite high overall. Inequality isn't caused by trade, it's caused by low taxes on rich people, weak unions, and weak labor regulation.

The terrible state of US production is a myth. The US is the second largest manufacturer in the world. The #1 spot is occupied by a country with over 4x our population. Manufacturing employment is down because our manufacturing productivity is really high. Yeah, we don't assemble smartphones or make plastic trinkets. We make cars and jetliners and computer chips.

If you want to address the national debt and inequality, the solution is to correct the power imbalance between employers and employees by strengthening labor regulations and unions, and to raise taxes, especially on high incomes, and especially on the super wealthy. Taxing people like Elon Musk down to a more manageable 10 or 11 figures of net worth won't do a lot for the nation's finances directly, but it will do a lot to curb their power and get the government to be more responsive to our interests instead of theirs.

(And no, tariffs are not a good way to do this, since they're regressive.)

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#685

Post by kortilla »

cloverich wrote: post #661
lumb63 wrote: post #625

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well…

> Globalization has played a big role in creating the massive income inequality in our country; it seems like we should fix that. Wouldn't restoring the prior taxes to those with highest incomes, and adding a proper capital gains tax, address this directly? As I've started to accumulate small amounts of wealth I've realized, my capital gains are taxed lower than my income; when I sell my house, I get up to 500k of ga…

No, tax increases will not create better jobs to backfill the ones moved overseas by globalization.

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#686

Post by ccorcos »

lumb63 wrote: post #625

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well…

I really want to read a good response to this comment. I have the same questions, and I’ll add one more thought.

Lots of people talk about how the US should be more like Europe. People say the average European has a better quality of life, etc. Well, Europe has tariffs…

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#687

Post by TaurenHunter »

rthomas6 wrote: post #613
TaurenHunter wrote: post #599

I don't see anyone mentioning that the United States needs to manage its massive national debt, currently in the trillions, by issuing Treasury securities. These securities mature at varying intervals and require continuous "rolling" or refinancing to pay off old debt with new borrowing. Significant rollovers are expected from April through September 2025, with additional short-term maturities due by June. Higher int…

The flaw I see is centered around this paragraph. > How can rates come down? The present uncertainty around tariffs and a potential crisis could create conditions that pressure interest rates downward before those Treasury securities mature, by influencing Federal Reserve policy. Rising prices due to tariffs won't pressure the Fed to lower interest rates. It will increase inflation and worries of inflation, which wil…

Perhaps, we are mixing 2 things:

1) Economic/Monetary Inflation, which is an increase in the money supply in an economy driven by government or central bank ("print money").

2) Price Inflation, which is an increase in the general price level of goods and services that people typically notice at the groceries or gas and usually derives from monetary inflation, but can also be due to the new tariffs.

Is the Fed going to do the same confusion and use 2 to justify higher rates for longer?

I think they shouldn't unless they're being disingenuous and politically motivated (push just enough to make the entire Trump mandate an unending crisis until Democrats get back in power).

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#688

Post by [deleted] »

no_wizard wrote: post #651
TaurenHunter wrote: post #599

I don't see anyone mentioning that the United States needs to manage its massive national debt, currently in the trillions, by issuing Treasury securities. These securities mature at varying intervals and require continuous "rolling" or refinancing to pay off old debt with new borrowing. Significant rollovers are expected from April through September 2025, with additional short-term maturities due by June. Higher int…

I know there is a crowd that talks about debt alot and these are all legitimate concerns However they could also raise taxes on capital gains and top end income brackets - which are at ludicrously low levels for folks of significant wealth - which would go a very long way here. Some estimates suggest it could put the US back in a surplus quite quickly edit: I'm saying there is an argument for raising taxes. I don't t…

[deleted]

Re: US Administration announces 34% tariffs on China, 20% on EU

#690

Post by boringg »

lumb63 wrote: post #625

Everyone is quick to deride this move as stupid. I don’t disagree that there are downsides to the approach, but there is a set of very real national problems that this might address. For instance, globalization and offshoring of production has made goods cheaper for consumers, but what about the former domestic producers who could not compete, and do not have the skills or capital to find a new job which pays as well…

Agreed there are serious restructuring that needs to happen in the US.

That said this approach doesn't make a lot of sense. There are many ways to do this without antagonizing all of your allies which only helps out your enemies and ostracizes the U.S.

Loss of confidence in the greenback is deeply problematic for US power.

Post reply on HN