Live updates: Trump announces sweeping tariffs
-
I’m not sure that’s any better, as traders and news have a whole night to digest it now. It might’ve seemed less bad with just an hour (before the next controversy consumes the cycle).
-
Probably fucking subsidized instead, though I didn’t see specifics about fossil fuels
-
The tiny scale artists still have to buy supplies. And eat, and pay rent.
Don’t forget, this is a regressive tax, and small craft workers tend to be poor.
Their prices will go up as much. It may even be worse for them, in aggregate, even if selling more of their stuff.
-
Bingo.
It’s true in many roundabout ways, but the math adds up to “break for billionaires.”
Like, it’s full of nepotism, too. Take the discrete tax on automobiles and auto parts: I'll give you one guess on who that benefits.
-
Smells like Smoot-Hawley up in this bitch.
-
Most headlines I see are going with 10%, which is a big understatement.
It’s because they’re run by billionaires. Even liberal, big outlets harp on cultural issues to redirect focus.
-
Fewer people in the US are going to want to spend that much on a plushy. Unemployment is going to rise under Trump. There will be increased costs for needs and less cash for wants. But we will probably have continued inequality, so if a small scale artist can sell to rich people, they may do well.
-
Who gets to keep the nukes?
-
They’ll try to spin it in tomorrows finance news, so it may be sharp but not as sharp as it should be.
-
But....he's still racist right? Because that's all I care about. Making sure it's still okay to be racist.
-
-
Imagine he's golfing and a fucking engine block of a 1982 Buick Regal comes sailing through the air from 200 meters.
One can only dream.
-
This gold from wallstreetbets:
Soooo is the tariffs charged to the United States really a ratio of the trade imbalance?? For example Vietnam imported roughly 14.6 billion in goods from the United States, and we imported around 146 billion, so thus they have decided tariffs are 90% to the United States…thus we are putting a tariff on them of half of that…which means we are literally tariffing the goods we either a)need more or b) get more efficiently at a higher rate?
That may be the absolute dumbest way to create a tariff policy I could imagine if that is the case…which it looks to be.https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1jpzhje/tariff_chart_released/ml476s7/
-
With hundreds of millions of high powered weapons floating around?
You bet!! ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ
-
Nah, that ship has sailed. They'll never cut diplomatic ties, because why would they?
They've already decided they need to come together to live in a world without the US... They're already making trade deals and new defense pacts, they're already planning around us
-
He saw how much support Poilievre lost after he praised him, so now Mr Big Brain is trying reverse psychology.
-
Sweeping tariffs? Shit, I need a new broom
-
This and a hundred other issues would be settled in the process of negotiating the breakup. Odds are only a handful of states would want them, as only a handful would have the economic base to support their upkeep. Nukes are expensive as hell to build and maintain. New York, California, Texas, etc. Like any divorce, you have to negotiate and find a way of dividing communal property.
