Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See the Economist piece I clipped on the CR thread -- the best strategy for the rest of the world is to 1) accelerate disengagement from trade with the US to the largest extent possible, and 2) seek new, rational trading partners/relationships to fill the gap.  The US economy is big, but on the actual global scale, not so big that it can't be somewhat isolated, with engagement reduced to the bare minimum.

A trade war is not the best play for the rest of the world.  Slowly walking away is a much better play.

So as the US becomes further and further isolated from the rest of the world, which of our foreign adversaries will benefit?

Posted

I don't know who this twitter person is so don't attack.  But they have a nice chart from Goldman that shows import amounts from 2024, effective tariffs in 2024, and changes based on yesterday's announcement

1907808749592420785

 

Posted
50 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See the Economist piece I clipped on the CR thread -- the best strategy for the rest of the world is to 1) accelerate disengagement from trade with the US to the largest extent possible, and 2) seek new, rational trading partners/relationships to fill the gap.  The US economy is big, but on the actual global scale, not so big that it can't be somewhat isolated, with engagement reduced to the bare minimum.

A trade war is not the best play for the rest of the world.  Slowly walking away is a much better play.

14 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

So as the US becomes further and further isolated from the rest of the world, which of our foreign adversaries will benefit?

This is a bad divorce playing out in public, and the countries we are really pissing off are not going to show up at our doorstep saying "you know what, it's okay that I think you acted shitty, I'll still take you back".

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Fast-forward to the 2025 UT/A&M game thread: 

[Announcers: The Aggies are trying to move the ball here late in this third quarter, trailing by 10. What's this? Is that...is that Ted Cruz running onto the field? Why is he naked? Oh my god. Is he defecating at mid field and spreading it all over his exposed body??]

immamac: "Guys, please keep politics out of the conversation."

You're  cool, but man does this post say a lot about aggy these days.

Posted
32 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

So as the US becomes further and further isolated from the rest of the world, which of our foreign adversaries will benefit?

Um, all of them?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

See the Economist piece I clipped on the CR thread -- the best strategy for the rest of the world is to 1) accelerate disengagement from trade with the US to the largest extent possible, and 2) seek new, rational trading partners/relationships to fill the gap.  The US economy is big, but on the actual global scale, not so big that it can't be somewhat isolated, with engagement reduced to the bare minimum.

A trade war is not the best play for the rest of the world.  Slowly walking away is a much better play.

But then, we must remember that sometimes countries go to war over soccer games.  So there is that possibility that other countries will be engaged in stupid political posturing as well….. because I am sure that in the future historians will have a label for this part of the 21st-century.   

Instead of the “Gilded Age”, it will be remembered as “The Time the World Decided to Take Giant Steps Backwards for No Fucking Reason”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  And man, I've confessed my youthful stupidity -- "trickle down economics" as a hypothesis appealed to my younger, not fully informed brain.  BUT....I then got the experience of watching us try it in multiple iterations over the past decades.  And like someone observing attempt after attempt at making a working flapping flying machine.....

jirfv9.gif

I keenly spotted the results and concluded "well, guess I was wrong.  That doesn't work."  I'm sure I was dumb for buying into the hypothesis.  But once the experiment was run....repeatedly....demonstrating that the hypothesis is incorrect...I'd have to be dumber than dumb AND a psychopath for thinking it still should work.

Yet, instead of reaching that conclusion.....we're deciding "hey, the reason our flapping flying machine didn't work is because we started off too low to the ground.  Let's climb up that 1,000 foot cliff, and jump off from there!"  The fucking impact with the ground is gonna be brutal.

Eh, I'm not sure it wasn't fully formed.

Like a lot of things economic, there's theoretical and empirical.  The theoretical basis was reasonable, if not sound, in the absence of hindsight.

Now we have empirical data that tariffs don't work and neither do supply-side economics.

Posted
1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

So as the US becomes further and further isolated from the rest of the world, which of our foreign adversaries will benefit?

The key winner will be China. We just sent an open invitation to the world to strengthen their industrial ties with them.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Depression: On track. Germany: Rearming. Third term President: Maybe. 
 
Gentlemen I take back all I have said, my Ags are on track to bring it all home in 2029.

Your plan is so crazy, it just might work. (Robert Stack voice)
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Genuine question since we are outside the CR, do we have anyone on this board who thinks these tariffs are a good idea?

Theoretically tariffs of this nature could contribute to the redevelopment of some domestic industry. These particular ones aren't well thought out, and the general economic decline they will cause will likely prevent the type of domestic development that are intended to spur. Maybe @ChickenSandwich can explain why tariffs are needed to offset VAT. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 4
Posted
Spoiler

It’s not about China or Europe.
It’s about crashing the cycle.

Everyone’s busy debating whether Trump’s new tariff rhetoric is about protectionism, election tactics, or geopolitical strategy. But they’re missing the point — entirely.
What seems like protectionism might actually be a recession strategy.

The U.S. government is facing a massive refinancing wave. By the end of 2026, it needs to roll over $9 trillion (yes, trillion with a 'T') in maturing Treasury bonds. Most of this debt was issued during the near-zero interest rate years — a time we won’t see again anytime soon. Today, the 10-Year U.S. Treasury Yield is hovering below 4.20%, after peaking above 4.60% in Q4/2024.
That rate is the number that matters.
Every single basis point shaved off means billions saved in interest over the next decade.

And here’s the brutal truth:
The only realistic way to bring that yield down — is to slow the economy. By force, if necessary.

Enter tariffs.
Enter “economic nationalism.”
Enter measures that look irrational — but are laser-focused on deflating long-term growth expectations.

And yes, I understand the argument that tariffs tend to be inflationary in the short term. But what we’re seeing here is a systematic and significantly large-scale implementation — one that will, over the medium term, trigger a recession in the U.S. economy. And that’s exactly the scenario I described above.

A weaker economy leads to lower inflation expectations, lower demand for capital, and thus, lower yields. That’s exactly what Trump—and frankly, anyone at the helm of a debt-ridden superpower—needs right now.

It’s not just about tariffs. We’re seeing deliberate tolerance, even engineering, of economic slowdown.
The game plan is clear:
    1.    Suppress yields now.
    2.    Refinance trillions at lower cost.
    3.    Then switch to stimulus mode, revive the economy, and re-open the monetary floodgates.

We’ve seen this movie before. Think 2020–2021. Quantitative easing at scale. Zero rates. Explosive risk-on rally. That won’t happen again until this refinancing cycle is complete—and until the 10-Year Yield is under control.

Until then, we stay in a tight liquidity environment. The Fed is still reducing its balance sheet, and risk assets—especially in the tech and crypto space—remain subdued as a result.

So the next time someone says Trump is “starting a trade war,” look at it differently.
This isn’t a trade war.
It’s a yield war.

And for those watching markets:
Follow the 10-Year Treasury Yield Curve.
That’s where the real story is being written.

Per a tech bro ceo trump got a plan. Playing the long game. 

  • Haha 3
Posted
12 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Genuine question since we are outside the CR, do we have anyone on this board who thinks these tariffs are a good idea?

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Theoretically tariffs of this nature could contribute to the redevelopment of some domestic industry. These particular ones aren't well thought out, and the general economic decline they will cause will likely prevent the type of domestic development that are intended to spur. Maybe @ChickenSandwich can explain why tariffs are needed to offset VAT. 


When countries like Canada say they need to find new trading partners to replace the US…if they find them, they aren’t coming back to us, at least not in the next four years.

And this had the potential to really turbofuck a lot of poor people - the people who are least equipped to handle it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Genuine question since we are outside the CR, do we have anyone on this board who thinks these tariffs are a good idea?

Among the scholarly community that studies economics, there's not a consensus on whether or not tariffs are effective.  Their effects in the highly complex global macroeconomy are hard to measure and conclusions are difficult to derive.

I'm not an economist but through my professional career I know a decent amount about international business and a great amount about global supply chains.  In general I'm opposed to tariffs, I prefer to see policies that stress positive internal economic incentives to pursue the desired changes to national business policy, rather than negative external policy like tariffs.  

But I don't believe these tariffs are actually being put in place in the usual way, in an attempt to discourage general anti-competitive behavior on the part of other global players.  Trump usually tells us exactly what he's doing, whether we believe him or not, and he's already saying that these tariffs are all about bargaining power.  This is his usual MO and it's not at all surprising.  So in this case, analysis of whether or not tariffs in general are effective, is irrelevant.  Rather, the speculation and debate should be about whether or not this particular bargaining maneuver will be effective.  

There's already been plenty of discussion along those lines, on this thread.

Edited by utee94
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Rather, the speculation and debate should be about whether or not this particular bargaining maneuver will be effective.  

 

I think you’re spot on. But what’s scary is he has a willful misunderstanding of what tariffs are. Trade deficit = bad and that’s enough for him to see it as a weakness. And there’s a lot of damage that has/can/will occur for this bet to pay off and most likely universally pissing off allies so that they’re actively seeking new trade partners thus losing assumed leverage. Wonderful. 

Also what’s the payoff even if he gets some wins? That I’m not too clear on other than a generic, somehow he and his are grifting off this. There hasn’t been much investment in this country that he can Thanos snap the type of manufacturing he has in his head back in this country. Killing the CHIPS act shows he’s not serious about manufacturing that the US should be investing in either. 

Edited by YChang
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, YChang said:

 

I think you’re spot on. But what’s scary is he has a willful misunderstanding of what tariffs are. Trade deficit = bad and that’s enough for him to see it as a weakness. And there’s a lot of damage that has/can/will occur for this bet to pay off and most likely universally pissing off allies so that they’re actively seeking new trade partners thus losing assumed leverage. Wonderful. 

Also what’s the payoff even if he gets some wins? That I’m not too clear on other than a generic, somehow he and his are grifting off this. There hasn’t been much investment in this country that he can Thanos snap the type of manufacturing he has in his head back in this country. Killing the CHIPS act shows he’s not serious about manufacturing that the US should be investing in either. 

And, I would disagree that he has explicitly stated this is about bargaining.  His, ] reasoning, as usual, is a muddle.  This time it's a muddle of raise revenue (to cut taxes), return manufacturing to US, and punish our trading partners for selling us too much crap while not buying enough of ours.

One thing I disagree with from the anti-Trump factions is that the manufacturing jobs are not ones we want.  Yes, a lot of them are not and I have said as much, but a good number of them are.  But that's not happening on anyone's reasonable timeframe; and, I agree that to effectively accomplish that, other investments and incentives will need to be provided ala the CHIPs Act.

Most of Asia outside of China doesn't have any jobs we want back, so tariffing them makes little sense.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I would disagree that he has explicitly stated this is about bargaining.  His reasoning, as usual, is a muddle.  This time it's a muddle of raise revenue (to cut taxes), return manufacturing to US, and punish our trading partners for selling us too much crap while not buying enough of ours.

It's the standard approach of this regime: at some point or another, claim EVERY possible reason for taking an action.  Then, when one of those comes true, claim that you were right.  It's like picking both the Eagles and the Chiefs to win the Super Bowl....hell, picking them both to win in the same sentence, even.  Then, when the Eagles win...you were right!  See, he's a genius, he was right!   Or, if the Chiefs had won.....see, he's a genius, he was right!

There is no reason here.  Just a use of another arm of policy as a blunt instrument, treating 1) every other person and nation in the world as an enemy/adversary, and 2) every transaction as a zero-sum game, which you can only win if the other party loses.  There need be no positive outcome for the regime to claim victory: negative outcomes/suffering by other people and countries will be enough to claim the W, no matter how much attendant economic loss and suffering happens here at home.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I would disagree that he has explicitly stated this is about bargaining.  His, ] reasoning, as usual, is a muddle.  This time it's a muddle of raise revenue (to cut taxes), return manufacturing to US, and punish our trading partners for selling us too much crap while not buying enough of ours.

One thing I disagree with from the anti-Trump factions is that the manufacturing jobs are not ones we want.  Yes, a lot of them are not and I have said as much, but a good number of them are.  But that's not happening on anyone's reasonable timeframe; and, I agree that to effectively accomplish that, other investments and incentives will need to be provided ala the CHIPs Act.

Most of Asia outside of China doesn't have any jobs we want back, so tariffing them makes little sense.

And yet those countries are facing the highest tariffs due to the formula being used to calculate the tariffs that has no connection to tariffs charged by the exporting country. The US is punishing poor countries that manufacture low cost items for us that we can’t cost effectively produce within our own borders. I don’t see a huge market for F150s in Cambodia so they’re just fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, royiv said:

And yet those countries are facing the highest tariffs due to the formula being used to calculate the tariffs that has no connection to tariffs charged by the exporting country. The US is punishing poor countries that manufacture low cost items for us that we can’t cost effectively produce within our own borders. I don’t see a huge market for F150s in Cambodia so they’re just fucked.

Bingo.  The Economist piece captured it perfectly:

Quote

. As stockmarket futures tumbled, shares in Nike, which has factories in Vietnam (tariff: 46%) fell by 7%. Does Mr Trump really think Americans would be better off if only they sewed their own running shoes?

THISTHISTHIS.  Fucking.  Seriously.  Are we going to hold out until Nike brings it's running shoe sewing operation to the US?  The fucking economic idiocy here is of galactic proportions.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, immamac said:

Idk how to get this thread back on track. 

Try to leave politics out of it. 

It will be difficult to leave the politics out of it, as you've observed, as this policy has been largely one-sided, if not from a single person.  

At the end of the day, the tariffs are being imposed, seemingly at random, by a person who does not appear to have a middle school understanding of economics and history.  He just uses a bludgeon, which is common for a primate with a primitive mind.  2 good examples: (1) applying tariffs EVERYWHERE, even on uninhabited islands and (2) elasticity constants that are integers.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, utee94 said:

Among the scholarly community that studies economics, there's not a consensus on whether or not tariffs are effective.

Bull fucking shit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, royiv said:

And yet those countries are facing the highest tariffs due to the formula being used to calculate the tariffs that has no connection to tariffs charged by the exporting country. The US is punishing poor countries that manufacture low cost items for us that we can’t cost effectively produce within our own borders. I don’t see a huge market for F150s in Cambodia so they’re just fucked.

Does this set up Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. economies to crash so they go open handed to Uncle Joe Vladimir?  These countries finally have reasonably functional market economies and are going to be crushed by this capricious behavior.

Posted
1 minute ago, boilerhorn said:

Does this set up Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. economies to crash so they go open handed to Uncle Joe Vladimir?  These countries finally have reasonably functional market economies and are going to be crushed by this capricious behavior.

Uncle Xi, more likely.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Uncle Xi, more likely.  

Correct.

We just Made China Great Again.  I think we're also Making Europe Great Again.

When you demonstrate that you are an unreliable and dangerous trading partner (which we just did, as plainly as can be done), then the rational response by everyone else is to pursue a strategy of disentanglement.

Think of the lessons we learned from the supply-chain crisis of the pandemic: we were foolish to depend on foreign sources for certain genuinely important goods (chips and the like).  We then pursued a wise strategy of working to incentivize and move some of that production here, and making ourselves less dependent on something demonstrably untrustworthy (the supply chain) -- we passed the CHIPS act, and it's working.

Well, the world is learning a lesson here: every percentage point that your economy is entangled with/dependent on the US is a percentage point of volatile and dangerous risk.  You should shave off as many percentage points as possible to minimize that risk.  And lucky for you, you have a pool of....literally every country on the planet OTHER than the US....who is in the same boat with you and on board with that plan.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

If anyone thinks China is going to be less heavy-handed than the US, they're kidding themselves.  Rock and a hard place for those countries.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Bull fucking shit.

I guess it is a question of effective at what? They have an effect (cost increases). Whether they also have the effect of creating a domestic industry may be more questionable. 

8 minutes ago, utee94 said:

If anyone thinks China is going to be less heavy-handed than the US, they're kidding themselves.  Rock and a hard place for those countries.

But it'll be predictable. And that may matter a lot more at this point. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But it'll be predictable. And that may matter a lot more at this point. 

Some will no doubt consider China as an alternative.  But China's longstanding anti-competitive practices are already harsher than anything the USA has ever done, including these new tariffs.  Talking about turning to China is easy, doing it in practice is much more difficult, and more painful.

 

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The Dow is already down 1500 this morning.  That seems like a decent amount.

Almost time to BUY!!!

Posted
2 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Genuine question since we are outside the CR, do we have anyone on this board who thinks these tariffs are a good idea?

The only (colorable) arguments I've heard in favor of them are that Reagan did this shit to Japan over cars and look at all the car manaufacturing in the south now!! and that it is a brush back pitch on other countries tarrifing us disproportionately.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Does Mr Trump really think Americans would be better off if only they sewed their own running shoes?

Is this bootstraps? 

Posted

Season 7 Oops GIF by Workaholics

Wondered if this was going to piss off the gaming crowd, and yep, it will.

Statement from Nintendo: Statement from Nintendo: Pre-orders for Nintendo Switch 2 in the U.S. will not start April 9, 2025 in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions. Nintendo will update timing at a later date. The launch date of June 5, 2025 is unchanged.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Season 7 Oops GIF by Workaholics

Wondered if this was going to piss off the gaming crowd, and yep, it will.

Statement from Nintendo: Statement from Nintendo: Pre-orders for Nintendo Switch 2 in the U.S. will not start April 9, 2025 in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions. Nintendo will update timing at a later date. The launch date of June 5, 2025 is unchanged.

 

$449 to $600 or something 

  • Like 1
Posted

If tariffs are such a great tool, why don't the states levy them on one another?  And if the US were to annex Canada, what would happen to those tariffs?  If they are good now, what magically changes if they become a state?

It's a stupid tool for stupid people to use in the name of brain-dead nationalistic policies.

Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Season 7 Oops GIF by Workaholics

Wondered if this was going to piss off the gaming crowd, and yep, it will.

Statement from Nintendo: Statement from Nintendo: Pre-orders for Nintendo Switch 2 in the U.S. will not start April 9, 2025 in order to assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions. Nintendo will update timing at a later date. The launch date of June 5, 2025 is unchanged.

 

Nintendo is selling a Japan region-locked Switch 2 for $340(ish) though

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...