The world reacts to Trump's sweeping tariffs: 'No basis in logic'
-
Naa, 9001% is too high. It's impossible. Better stick with 9000%.
-
There are penguins!
-
This is the only person I have seen say this so I can only guess no one is repeating it but it appears to be correct when I checked a few countries.
Its fucking insane to think Cambodia has a 97% tariff, and he thinks they are getting rich off of it.
-
They're mostly [Trade deficit]/[Exports to US]
Which is a fucking stupid basis for tariffs.
-
Of that I am not convinced. This will work with a lot of smaller countries that don't have much of a copyright portfolio, but not with Europe.
-
no, “Sean” is not a country in ASEAN. That is incorrect.
-
17% and they're already crying about it.
Ironically it's the closest the US has gotten to a BDS policy in its history with Israel.
-
The depth of stupidity of this Administration will be studied by mathematicians for centuries as a new form of fractal.
-
Have we forgotten that he has done this each month since he was Inaugurated?
Today the stock market will crash on this news. The wealthy will buy on this massive dip, and in a few days, HitlerPig will announce that the countries on his list have responded to his tariff threats, so he is postponing them for a month or so.
The stock market will recover a bit, and the wealthy will make a fortune. In a month, he'll do it all over again.
It's deliberate market manipulation.
-
It's possibly the most stupid basis for tariffs. The penalty is directly proportional to U.S. reliance on a country's imports. The countries that are the most important suppliers to the U.S. are penalized the most. It's a policy designed to cause maximum reshuffling of production, which maximizes the start-up costs of developing new factories and so on. And those factories are not going to be in the U.S. Import substitution industrialization is a failed policy and it won't work for reindustrialization either.
-
-
No basis in logic if he were actually trying to do what he says he is. He's not. They make perfect sense if the goal is to destabilize the country. We elected a fucking Manchurian candidate twice, and the in-between term was spent on a bunch of business as usual and not setting up protections in case it happened again. This country is fucking done.
-
From the article you’re probably referring to:
DCInvestor’s observation came in response to crypto trader Jordan Fish, also known as Cobie, who also asked ChatGPT using the prompt: “What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even playing fields when it comes to trade deficit. Set a minimum of 10%.”
A straightforward (if naïve) method is to set the tariff rate for each trading partner equal to the percentage share of the trade deficit relative to that country's total imports-always no less than 10%.
In formula form:
Tariff Rate (%) = max(10, (Trade Deficit ÷ Total Imports) x 100)
For example, if the US runs a $20 billion deficit on $100 billion worth of imports from a country, the calculated rate is (20/100)×100 = 20%. If the deficit were only 5%, you'd still
impose a 10% floor. This method ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade-such as elasticities, retaliatory measures, and supply chain nuances-but it provides a blunt, proportional rule to "level the playing field." One might implement it in Python like so:def calculate_tariff(trade_deficit, total_imports): # Calculate the deficit ratio as a percentage ratio =(trade_deficit / total_imports) * 100 # Enforce a minimum tariff of 10% return max(10, ratio) # Example usage: tariff = calculate_tariff(20e9, 100e9) # $20B deficit on $100B imports yields a 20% tariff print(f"The tariff rate should be {tariff}%")We are defining trade policy with predictive text. What a time to be alive. Jesus tapdancing christ.
