The world reacts to Trump's sweeping tariffs: 'No basis in logic'
-
Summary
Global leaders criticized Trump’s new tariffs, which range from 10% to 49%, warning of trade wars and economic fallout.
The UK and Italy urged negotiation, while Brazil passed a reciprocity bill. China and South Korea vowed countermeasures.
Australia and New Zealand rejected Trump’s logic, citing existing trade deals and low tariffs. Norfolk Island was baffled by a 29% duty despite having no exports.
Financial markets dropped, oil and bitcoin sank, and leaders warned of inflation. Analysts say Trump risks fracturing global trade with little to gain economically.
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.
-
They're mostly [Trade deficit]/[Exports to US]
Which is a fucking stupid basis for tariffs.
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.
-
I’ve never once heard a penguin say thank you.
-
Lmao wat.
I’d ask if you’re serious, but I’m also sure you are.
Honestly, I was expecting this administration to be mind-numbingly stupid, but somehow they keep finding ways to surpass my expectations on that front on a daily basis. I’d be impressed if it wasn’t so catastrophic.
-
and the price of bitcoin dropped 4.4%.
I cannot express how much I hate that this appears in a serious economic article.
-
There are penguins!
-
Summary
Global leaders criticized Trump’s new tariffs, which range from 10% to 49%, warning of trade wars and economic fallout.
The UK and Italy urged negotiation, while Brazil passed a reciprocity bill. China and South Korea vowed countermeasures.
Australia and New Zealand rejected Trump’s logic, citing existing trade deals and low tariffs. Norfolk Island was baffled by a 29% duty despite having no exports.
Financial markets dropped, oil and bitcoin sank, and leaders warned of inflation. Analysts say Trump risks fracturing global trade with little to gain economically.
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.
-
I've heard that if you type in the right prompt into ChatGPT, this list is the result. They couldn't even be bothered to have an expert figure this out, or even souble check it before releasing it. So they end up putting tariffs on penguins.
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.
-
There are penguins!
Give him some credit (not a lot). What if China were to give these penguins cars to resale? Middle men penguins is what they are. They should call the island Midway island, a term invented by his assholness.
-
Summary
Global leaders criticized Trump’s new tariffs, which range from 10% to 49%, warning of trade wars and economic fallout.
The UK and Italy urged negotiation, while Brazil passed a reciprocity bill. China and South Korea vowed countermeasures.
Australia and New Zealand rejected Trump’s logic, citing existing trade deals and low tariffs. Norfolk Island was baffled by a 29% duty despite having no exports.
Financial markets dropped, oil and bitcoin sank, and leaders warned of inflation. Analysts say Trump risks fracturing global trade with little to gain economically.
I mean, it's pretty logical.
He wants to enrich his American buddies, and this is how we do it.
Instead of competing fairly with foreign businesses, Americans artificially increase the prices of the competition so customers don't have a cheaper option to choose.
I want to say this country sucks, I really do. But in all honesty, this generation sucks. The greed and consumerism on both sides is what led us to this.
It's a two-pronged approach where we have the 'lesser-evil' morons working in tandem with the 'greater-evil' scumbags to ensure good never prevails.
Fuck everyone who voted for hillary clinton and joe biden in their primaries. I put the blame squarely on them for why we have 2 trump presidencies.
Big reason why I didn't vote this election. Tired of supporting the "lesser-evil" crowd that never supports me for some reason. Loyalty is a one-way street with them.
-
This is unironically a great deal for him and his cronies and an awful deal for the working class.
I swear, it's just distraction after distraction, obstacle after obstacle that keeps us from toppling the ruling class. Anytime we get anywhere close to doing something significant, it's like the useful idiots come out in droves to make sure "NOPE NOPE NOPE, gotta keep history repeating itself!"
I wish I took my teachers and intelligent peers more seriously as a kid. I didn't realize how lucky I was to be surrounded by such great, smart people. I took them for granted, and now that I'm out in the real world I see exactly how stupid the average idiot is.
It's scary. Terrifying, even. There's so many of them and they all use that as justification for why they're right.
-
I hope the EU reacts with something non-tariffy. Like forbidding US online platforms to serve ads and collect personal data, with severe punishments if they still do.
Advertising should just be illegal.
It gives an unfair advantage to those who already have an unfair advantage.
I recommend installing an addon called AdNauseam to block ads in addition to sending data that you've clicked them.
Please everyone. Try to understand that being a useful idiot is the norm these days. It's what's cool.
-
I mean, it's pretty logical.
He wants to enrich his American buddies, and this is how we do it.
Instead of competing fairly with foreign businesses, Americans artificially increase the prices of the competition so customers don't have a cheaper option to choose.
I want to say this country sucks, I really do. But in all honesty, this generation sucks. The greed and consumerism on both sides is what led us to this.
It's a two-pronged approach where we have the 'lesser-evil' morons working in tandem with the 'greater-evil' scumbags to ensure good never prevails.
Fuck everyone who voted for hillary clinton and joe biden in their primaries. I put the blame squarely on them for why we have 2 trump presidencies.
Big reason why I didn't vote this election. Tired of supporting the "lesser-evil" crowd that never supports me for some reason. Loyalty is a one-way street with them.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You don't even have to go that far. Just adopt sane copyright laws, like copyright only lasting the life of the artist.
-
This is not the end goal.
Anyone who believes this without critique is incapable of autonomous thought.
Still it was too difficult for you to express your own opinions. Too scary?
-
The Sociopathic Oligarchs want to assign as much responsibility to AI as possible. Smart people are expensive, AI is cheap. That makes AI the better choice to run the world.
I look forward to building my retirement in a handful of years in the recovery phase of this exercise in abject idiocy (assuming there is, in fact, anything to recover)
-
Summary
Global leaders criticized Trump’s new tariffs, which range from 10% to 49%, warning of trade wars and economic fallout.
The UK and Italy urged negotiation, while Brazil passed a reciprocity bill. China and South Korea vowed countermeasures.
Australia and New Zealand rejected Trump’s logic, citing existing trade deals and low tariffs. Norfolk Island was baffled by a 29% duty despite having no exports.
Financial markets dropped, oil and bitcoin sank, and leaders warned of inflation. Analysts say Trump risks fracturing global trade with little to gain economically.
"No basis in logic" will be both the title of Trump's time in office and the reason why the USA collapses
