Trump administration 2024-2028

[QV]

The commercial was for US voters during MLB world series, not Trump, or the Supreme Court, and was probably pretty effective on some, given Trump Barbara Streisand the shit out of it, and they can see Reagans full address quite easily, which also clearly argues against tariffs.

Fortunately, also inadvertently gave more arguments to the anti tarriff lawsuit going to the Supreme court, where 'hurt feelings from the POTUS' isn't an authorized reason from the US legislation to enact tariffs for National Security, and justifies them being illegal under US law.

Which if what I’ve read on the subject is accurate was Reagans speech just before laying tariffs on Japan. Trump has stated several times over, he is using tariffs to counter unfair trade (tariffs) from other countries.

 

[QV]

This entire debacle will not end with Trump leaving office. The reality is the USA can no longer afford to fund the free world or absorb unfair trade imbalances like it has for decades. Not with the aggression shown by Russia and China.

If the Democrats win in 2028, do any of you think the US will be fine with rolling back to 1.3% defence spending and the last decade of economic policies? Not a chance.

It’s a new world, realties are hitting home. If Canada doesn’t adjust, it’s done.

 

[brihard]

Which if what I’ve read on the subject is accurate was Reagans speech just before laying tariffs on Japan. Trump has stated several times over, he is using tariffs to counter unfair trade (tariffs) from other countries.

Keep reading then. Reagan imposed very specifically targeted, narrow sectoral tariffs on Japan due to an articulable breach of trade agreements. Trump has tariffed basically everybody, unilaterally, well outside the scope of any powers delegated by congress, and without and remotely coherent articulation tied to an ascertainable fact pattern aligning with applicable law. It's another case of 'you know Trump's lying because he's talking'.

Reagan lamented the necessity of those very limited, narrow tariffs on Japan, and felt compelled to speak to the nation to justify them. Trump revels in tariffs as a blunt bludgeon with which he attacks international agreements and trade policy. The citation of Reagan as an avowed free-trader who hated tariffs is accurate. Trump is lying when he says that's a misrepresentation; it's exactly a correct portrayal of Reagan's views, in his own words. Trump is mentally and intellectually stuck in 1700s mercantilism, doesn't understand why that ultimately faded or failed, and is using coarse protectionism to appeal to the economically illiterate portions of his base, knowing that he has the rest of the party sufficiently cowed that he can get away with it. But it doesn't make any of what he says true.

 

[Remius]

No idea, but it's irrelevant.

Convenient.

It's not me the people angry at Trump have to worry about provoking. It's Trump, so it's Trump's skin thickness they have to worry about. Sometimes Finland* has to give a shit about what Russia* thinks.

Finland gave the finger to Russia and joined NATO.

*Many more candidates for the analogy, including that perennial favourite, the girl in the short red dress who wanders through bad neighbourhoods. The universe isn't fair, and people ought to meet that cold reality head-on.

Or face it head on and maybe not give up easily.

 

[mariomike]

Pffft. I'm not a blade

Staff are familiar with the term.

So like Maple Maga??

 

[Brad Sallows]

Which if what I’ve read on the subject is accurate was Reagans speech just before laying tariffs on Japan. Trump has stated several times over, he is using tariffs to counter unfair trade (tariffs) from other countries.

That can't be taken seriously. If he'd picked one story and stuck to it, maybe. He already muddied the water with "national security" (eg. drug trafficking). Targeted counter-protectionism (eg. anti-dumping) tariffs have a perfectly uncontroversial pedigree, notwithstanding the purest economic interpretation (ie. that if someone is willing to subsidize your consumption, you should milk them for as long as possible).

 

[brihard]

That can't be taken seriously. If he'd picked one story and stuck to it, maybe. He already muddied the water with "national security" (eg. drug trafficking).

Decision-based evidence making, in other words.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Convenient.

Finland gave the finger to Russia and joined NATO.

I'm old, so I've had time to read a bit further back. See also: Finlandization.

Or face it head on and maybe not give up easily.

Maybe, but usually that's just pride/ego talking, not the thinking part of the brain.

 

[QV]

Keep reading then. Reagan imposed very specifically targeted, narrow sectoral tariffs on Japan due to an articulable breach of trade agreements. Trump has tariffed basically everybody, unilaterally, well outside the scope of any powers delegated by congress, and without and remotely coherent articulation tied to an ascertainable fact pattern aligning with applicable law. It's another case of 'you know Trump's lying because he's talking'.

Reagan lamented the necessity of those very limited, narrow tariffs on Japan, and felt compelled to speak to the nation to justify them. Trump revels in tariffs as a blunt bludgeon with which he attacks international agreements and trade policy. The citation of Reagan as an avowed free-trader who hated tariffs is accurate. Trump is lying when he says that's a misrepresentation; it's exactly a correct portrayal of Reagan's views, in his own words. Trump is mentally and intellectually stuck in 1700s mercantilism, doesn't understand why that ultimately faded or failed, and is using coarse protectionism to appeal to the economically illiterate portions of his base, knowing that he has the rest of the party sufficiently cowed that he can get away with it. But it doesn't make any of what he says true.

Is it possible the US’ position on trade with many countries has changed for the worse (in the eyes of the US) since the 1980s and they can no longer tolerate that situation?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Which if what I’ve read on the subject is accurate was Reagans speech just before laying tariffs on Japan. Trump has stated several times over, he is using tariffs to counter unfair trade (tariffs) from other countries.

No one was tariffing the US, that's just complete lies. Depending on when you listened to him, he was putting on tarriffs because we were smuggling 'uge quantities of fentanyl (50 lbs), allowing illegal immigrants across (more are coming north from the US now), and now because his feelings are hurt.

He's just dumb AF, and thinking trade deficits mean countries are taking advantage of the US, and not just they are heavily reliant of importing of things to sustain their lifestyle, like Canadian oil, gas and electricity. We import more American stuff then they do Canadian stuff, which is wild given they are 10 times our size.

Regan put some very limited tariffs on Japan, because they were in contravention of some free trade agreements, and made the speech because he hated tariffs generally and was explaining why he did that. Just read his actual full speech, the only thing the ON ad did was edit out the line specific to Japan. This is simliar to the tariffs they keep slapping on our softwood, except those ones against Japan were upheld, vice repeatedly shown to be unjustified in numerous trade tribunals. Regan hated tariffs because they are essentially a surcharge against the importer, specifically Americans.

 

[QV]

That can't be taken seriously. If he'd picked one story and stuck to it, maybe. He already muddied the water with "national security" (eg. drug trafficking). Targeted counter-protectionism (eg. anti-dumping) tariffs have a perfectly uncontroversial pedigree, notwithstanding the purest economic interpretation (ie. that if someone is willing to subsidize your consumption, you should milk them for as long as possible).

I don’t think any one is defending Trumps public outbursts or propensity to provide controversial media meat in his statements. But his top trade advisors have stated the main reasons for halting further talks is Canada being difficult in negotiations from their standpoint.

 

[Remius]

Is it possible the US’ position on trade with many countries has changed for the worse (in the eyes of the US) since the 1980s and they can no longer tolerate that situation?

Based on what evidence?

Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Tariffs

The tariffs amount to an average tax increase of nearly $1,300 per US household in 2025.

taxfoundation.org

Some info, data and predictive and historical info at that link.

So growth is shrinking and costs are rising. Is that a better situation or a worse one?

 

[QV]

Based on what evidence?

Tracking the Economic Impact of the Trump Tariffs

The tariffs amount to an average tax increase of nearly $1,300 per US household in 2025.

taxfoundation.org

Some info, data and predictive and historical info at that link.

So growth is shrinking and costs are rising. Is that a better situation or a worse one?

I’m asking the question because I don’t know the evolution of trade agreements by country with the US since the 1980s or earlier. Has the US improved or not its trade positions since then?

Has the US determined it can no longer afford the status quo? I think that answer has been a yes for many years now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Is it possible the US’ position on trade with many countries has changed for the worse (in the eyes of the US) since the 1980s and they can no longer tolerate that situation?

It's possible, but the only eyes that could see it that way are clouded by ignorance.

The most charitable defence of the Trump administration's position on tariffs (that I've read) is that they genuinely believe they can eventually revert to an earlier era of US government funding, in which tariffs were a prominent source and income taxes non-existent or very nearly so (depends upon period). Current levels of government spending essentially suggest that dream is hopeless. Income taxes are not going away.

And what is meant by "position on trade"? Balance of trade? Balance of trade is an arbitrary definition, usually limited to the trade between two particular countries, which ceases to be a meaningful measurement as soon as third, fourth, etc countries are accounted. It is a stupid foundation for trade and economic policy. Even if it weren't, the administration's apparent position - that it wants the US to have a positive balance of trade everywhere that matters - is incoherent. Some may remember that Trump has criticized negative balances of trade. Some may also remember that Trump has lauded supposed deals that will lead to foreign direct investment in the US. The problem: definitionally, FDI increases balance of trade to the negative side.

That Trump has illiberally up-ended things in ways that are shaking some liberal (positive, useful) changes loose in other countries (including Canada) is worthwhile (since obviously no other means were being successful), but long-term Trump's policies are generally detrimental - to the US, AND to other countries (ie. worse than net zero). Restoration of status quo ante for international trade, if some of the useful changes are retained, could ultimately leave us better off.

 

[brihard]

Is it possible the US’ position on trade with many countries has changed for the worse (in the eyes of the US) since the 1980s and they can no longer tolerate that situation?

He has imposed tariffs on countries with which the US enjoys a considerable trade surplus. His actions are not consistent with his purported justifications. Nor are such trade imbalances consistent with claims of 'national security'.

Very basic economics and the concept of comparative advantage ensure that in an international trade market, various countries will have various surpluses and deficits depending on what goods and services a given country can produce. A bilateral trade deficit with one country means little until you look at international trade in its totality. America is the world’s largest economy and is a net consumer; their GDP has allowed for that to be a lifestyle. A net trade deficit is inevitable but is also a product of how much value-added wealth America creates. It’s not, broadly, a national security threat. Certain very narrow and specific sectors in some cases are.

I don’t think any one is defending Trumps public outbursts or propensity to provide controversial media meat in his statements. But his top trade advisors have stated the main reasons for halting further talks is Canada being difficult in negotiations from their standpoint.

Which is the closest we’ll get to honesty out of them. No shit we’re ‘difficult’. We didn’t quickly cave as they desired. We’ve held them to our legally valid and enforceable trade treaty CUSMA. They want us to put pen to paper and consent to a worse deal than what we currently have and we won’t. The pending Supreme Court ruling is a vulnerability and they know it; hence why they’ve pushed to sign as many trade deals as they can while that sword of Damocles still hangs. We aren’t playing that game, and so we are ‘difficult’ in the way a rapist might characterize a combative victim.

 

[QV]

It's possible, but the only eyes that could see it that way are clouded by ignorance.

The most charitable defence of the Trump administration's position on tariffs (that I've read) is that they genuinely believe they can eventually revert to an earlier era of US government funding, in which tariffs were a prominent source and income taxes non-existent or very nearly so (depends upon period). Current levels of government spending essentially suggest that dream is hopeless. Income taxes are not going away.

And what is meant by "position on trade"? Balance of trade? Balance of trade is an arbitrary definition, usually limited to the trade between two particular countries, which ceases to be a meaningful measurement as soon as third, fourth, etc countries are accounted. It is a stupid foundation for trade and economic policy. Even if it weren't, the administration's apparent position - that it wants the US to have a positive balance of trade everywhere that matters - is incoherent. Some may remember that Trump has criticized negative balances of trade. Some may also remember that Trump has lauded supposed deals that will lead to foreign direct investment in the US. The problem: definitionally, FDI increases balance of trade to the negative side.

That Trump has illiberally up-ended things in ways that are shaking some liberal (positive, useful) changes loose in other countries (including Canada) is worthwhile (since obviously no other means were being successful), but long-term Trump's policies are generally detrimental - to the US, AND to other countries (ie. worse than net zero). Restoration of status quo ante for international trade, if some of the useful changes are retained, could ultimately leave us better off.

Your closing paragraph suggests hints of Art of the Deal. Go big at first. Room to negotiate, after eventual concessions still got what you wanted all along.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don’t think any one is defending Trumps public outbursts or propensity to provide controversial media meat in his statements. But his top trade advisors have stated the main reasons for halting further talks is Canada being difficult in negotiations from their standpoint.

‘Difficult’ is code word for ‘having a spine.’

 

[Altair]

‘Difficult’ is code word for ‘having a spine.’

We must lay down our arms, our nasty words, and financial boycotts. Only through capitulation may we find the sweet nectar of victory

 

[QV]

‘Difficult’ is code word for ‘having a spine.’

Hard to say without the context. I’m not one to blindly approve of any governments actions. And I have low faith in this LPC government of the last decade.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We must lay down our arms, our nasty words, and financial boycotts. Only through capitulation may we find the sweet nectar of victory

Carney is the only one who has what it takes to stand up against Trump and win. How we doing so far?