Is It An Actual Tariff?

For your consideration. 

He makes a lotta sense. I've said all along Trump is doing this to gain leverage and bargaining advantages, and it seems to be working. He's also doing taking actions that force lawsuits to get clarification by the courts as to the extent of his presidential powers

He makes a lotta sense.

If what he says about the subject, I have to agree. I expect that a lot of the pushback we see comes from Wall Street, because they don't really care about what's best for the country, in my opinion, but their profit margin. So, tariffs are going to be pushed as bad. They will appeal to short-term self interest, like higher prices. 

He's also doing taking actions that force lawsuits to get clarification by the courts as to the extent of his presidential powers

That thought has occurred to me as well. It's the only rational explanation for why he's going so hard right out of the gate. Get the lawsuits going now, then proceed based on the results. That's just speculation, though. 

First he argues that Trump tariffs are not tariffs because of how Trump is using tariffs.    He is correct that Trump is NOT using tariffs for their most common purpose of temporarily dampening foreign competition to help strengthen a domestic industry.   Tariffs used in this way are strategic.   They buy time to strengthen an industry that we want to strengthen for the long term.

Trump is indeed NOT doing that.   Trump is using tariffs as a threat.   And not as a threat as in 'speak softly and carry a big stick' where the threat of tariff is in the background to help influence negotiation.   No, Trump publicly threatens trade partners and puts them on the defensive with the need to publicly save face, before even sitting down privately with them to negotiate.   This is just brain-dead stupid.

Second, he argues that Trump is using tariffs as a negotiation tactic.   Correct.   And as I just pointed out, it is a stupid negotiation tactic.   International relationships are long term strategic.   It is valuable for our trade partners to feel comfortable with us and for us to be comfortable with them.   There is, in spite of all the detailed legal contracts, a necessary element of trust.   The more trust, the more likely better terms can be negotiated.   Basic, obvious notions that a 'master negotiator' like Trump should know.

He also argues that negotiations have been enabled because Trump issued tariff threats.   That stupidly pretends that the SoS is unable to contact nations like Panama and privately and thoughtfully put forth our concerns, engage them in dialogue to ensure we understand their positions, and then formulate a rational set of terms that would then be negotiated.   There is no need to publicly threaten our allies to get them to come to the table.

And then we have Canada.   Our most loyal, must trusted trade partner and next-door neighbor.   There was no need for Trump to publicly threaten them, insult them, piss on them.    Sit down with Canada and talk like rational long-term strategic allies and trade partners.   Now, because Trump is an attention-seeking buffoon, Canadian relationships are harmed, and Canada is now seeking alternate trade partners as well as building an East-West pipeline so that it no longer has to rely upon the USA to transport its oil.   Why?   Because they realize that they can no longer count on the American people to elect a responsible, rational PotUS.

Finally, he seems to buy the nonsensical notion that trade with each individual partner needs to be balanced.   That if imports to a nation does not equal exports to a nation that this imbalance represents one side screwing the other.   No.  Wrong.  Stupid.   In aggregate, it makes sense for a nation to have a balance of exports and imports (and even more exports than imports).     In uber-simplistic summary, this is good for a nation's GDP.    But trying to maintain balance with each nation makes no sense.

Another factor is that it is best to NOT be dependent upon other nations.   So if we are dependent on a nation for essential materials or products, we should strategically either find ways to produce same domestically or establish strong relationships with alternative suppliers for import.

But to think that a trade deficit with a particular nation is ipso facto bad is just wrong.

Bottom line, the critical flaw in his reasoning is that Trump's public, belligerent, outrageous threats made before any private negotiations take place is a good negotiation tactic.  

And he also FALSELY claims that Trump's tariffs were a last resort from failed private negotiations.   Anyone should be able to see that Trump just took office and as such, the negotiations start fresh.  It does not matter what took place in the past.   Sit down with a trade partner privately as a new administration and open the dialogue.   That big stick (tariffs) is leaning in the corner of the room.   They all see it.

Secondarily, he is trying to play word games and claim that Trump's tariffs are 'not really tariffs' because Trump is not using them conventionally.    SMH.

No, Trump publicly threatens trade partners and puts them on the defensive with the need to save face, before even sitting down privately with them to negotiate.   This is just brain-dead stupid.

The problem with this view is that, presumably, either such negotiations is what's been going on all along until Trump or that we (the government) have been allowing the conditions mentioned in the vid because it benefitted Wall Street. In the case of the first, the maxim about the definition of insanity and repetition comes to mind. In the second, negotiation is pointless, since they aren't meant to go anywhere and are simply for public consumption. 

Finally, he seems to buy the nonsensical notion that trade with each individual partner needs to be balanced.   That if imports to a nation does not equal exports to a nation that this imbalance represents one side screwing the other.   No.  Wrong.  Stupid.   In aggregate, it makes sense for a nation to have a balance of exports and imports (and even more exports than imports).     In uber-simplistic summary, this is good for a nation's GDP.    But trying to maintain balance with each nation makes no sense.

You're simply stating that it is stupid and makes no sense without explaining why that is. Seems to me that the most obvious consequence of such imbalances is that money is constantly leaving the US at a greater rate than is coming in, with a large percentage of what money does come in going to a relatively few who own some of those overseas companies. As a result, since all these products that represent the imbalance represent jobs, those jobs are overseas rather than here. 

Lastly, if what Hansen says is true, we're essentially a cow that the rest of the world is trying to milk for their benefit and our government seems to be complicit. 

And he also FALSELY claims that Trump's tariffs were a last resort from failed private negotiations.   Anyone should be able to see that Trump just took office and as such, the negotiations start fresh.

I disagree that this is a false claim, unless you're saying no administration has ever tried to solve this problem with negotiations before. If every administration tried to pour water into an upside-down glass, why would one find fault in the current one not trying that first? 

The problem with this view is that, presumably, either such negotiations is what's been going on all along until Trump or that we (the government) have been allowing the conditions mentioned in the vid because it benefitted Wall Street. In the case of the first, the maxim about the definition of insanity and repetition comes to mind. In the second, negotiation is pointless, since they aren't meant to go anywhere and are simply for public consumption. 

How exactly does the above explain why it is good for Trump to publicly try to bully our trade partners with outrageous tariffs without first privately sitting down with them as an opening salvo of a new administration?

You're simply stating that it is stupid and makes no sense without explaining why that is.

My whole post is explaining why this is stupid.   Did you bother to read where I point out that in aggregate it makes good sense to have balance (and actually to have a trade surplus) because of the positive effects on the GDP?   Breaking this down to the next level ... it is good for employment, income, and leverage.

Each nation, however, has different things to offer.   It makes no sense to impose tariffs on a nation supplying the USA with commodities such as coffee beans, avocados, wood, etc. at good prices simply because the trade partner is not able to import an equal amount of goods from the USA.    I trust you see why.

Lastly, if what Hansen says is true, we're essentially a cow that the rest of the world is trying to milk for their benefit and our government seems to be complicit. 

We have the power to negotiate good trade deals.   Anything that we believe is unfair, we can negotiate.   So even if Hansen was 100% correct, that is not a reason to engage in public threats of outrageous tariffs.  

I disagree that this is a false claim, unless you're saying no administration has ever tried to solve this problem with negotiations before.

I just in that very sentence explained this.   The 2025 Trump administration is a new administration.   Brand new.   New faces, new circumstances.   So it is incredibly easy to start fresh with a well-conceived plan and negotiate with our trade partners responsibly and privately.

Bottom line, public threats of tariffs should be a last resort, not the opening line.

How exactly does the above explain why it is good for Trump to publicly try bully our trade partners with outrageous tariffs without first privately sitting down with them as an opening salvo of a new administration?

I didn't say it was good, nor am I saying it's bad. However, I personally don't see any point in doing the same thing that's been tried  in the past, to no effect, again. Whether Trump's plan will be a good one remains to be seen, although it has already borne fruit in some cases. 

Did you bother to read where I point out that in aggregate it makes good sense to have balance (and actually to have a trade surplus) because of the positive effects on the GDP?

Yes, I read it. You begin with stating that the idea that trade needs to be balanced is stupid. Then, confusedly, present the idea that having a trade surplus is good. Well, yeah, for the country that has the surplus. For the one that has the deficit, it's bad, which would be us. So, again, why would it be stupid for both parties to benefit equally instead of just one? 

We have the power to negotiate good trade deals.   Anything that we believe is unfair, we can negotiate.   So even if Hansen was 100% correct, that is not a reason to engage in public threats of outrageous tariffs.

Given the current trade deficits we carry, I'm not sure what your point here might be. You say 'negotiate', as if we haven't tried that in the past. If we have that power, in other words, why are the deficits so bad? 

I just in that very sentence explained this.   The 2025 Trump administration is a new administration.   Brand new.   New faces, new circumstances.   So it is incredibly easy to start fresh with a well-conceived plan and negotiate with our trade partners responsibly and privately.

You don't seem to be addressing my points. Why should Trump, or any other administration keep trying what past admins have tried? Either it doesn't work or, due to Wall Street, never intended negotiations to work in the first place. To put it more simply, why should anyone keep doing what has already been done countless times with no results? 

And this, of course, assumes that the point is purely about the economics of trade imbalances. It doesn't even touch on Hansen's supposition that this is more of a political tool than an economic one. 

However, I personally don't see any point in doing the same thing that's been tried  in the past, to no effect, again.

It is by definition NOT the same thing.   Do you actually believe that US diplomats have zero creativity?   That our trade partners do not recognize that a new administration will have a different perspective?  

Whether Trump's plan will be a good one remains to be seen, although it has already borne fruit in some cases. 

The point is how Trump is approaching this.   One could beat one's wife to get her to do as one wishes or one could reason with her.   In both cases the same result could be achieved except the latter does not fuck up the long-term relationship and does not engender a desire for vengeance.

Then, confusedly, present the idea that having a trade surplus is good.

Okay, Drakk, you are just trying to not understand.  I made the distinction between balanced trade for a single partner vs. balanced trade in the aggregate.   Since I have now explained this twice there is no way I believe you do not understand this basic concept.    Plus you could easily research this and understand the difference between aggregate deficit vs. bilateral trade deficit (deficit with a single nation).   So since I know you are smart, I conclude you are intentionally pretending to not understand this basic concept.

Why?  To what end?

If we have that power, in other words, why are the deficits so bad? 

Who says the deficits ARE bad??   But if we have a bad trade deficit then the reasons are based with prior administrations.   It is not as if the USA does not have leverage.   Further, any leverage you can imagine we have by virtue of public, obnoxious threats is leverage we have with the big stick sitting in the corner.   Trump is not making a stronger bargaining position for the USA.   In fact, he is weakening it by harming trust and motivating trade partners to strike back and to find alternatives.   It is, in a word, stupid.

Why should Trump, or any other administration keep trying what past admins have tried?

How is it possible that you think the USA is a one-trick pony?   That we are unable to formulate a new plan in 2025, with new people, new circumstances, and critically, a new administration?   You seem to somehow believe that public humiliation and threats will be more productive than private negotiation.  

It doesn't even touch on Hansen's supposition that this is more of a political tool than an economic one. 

Same principle applies.   In negotiation with other nations, the opening salvo should not be a public, outrageous threat.   The opening salvo should be well-conceived, fair, and delivered in private.

Okay, Drakk, you are just trying to not understand.  I made the distinction between balanced trade for a single partner vs. balanced trade in the aggregate.   Since I have now explained this twice there is no way I believe you do not understand this basic concept.

Okay, TiG. I see you're just going to do what you always do. Have a nice night. 

Yeah, I will make a point, offer detailed explanations that you can look up for yourself to verify and then repeatedly deal with faux obtuseness, etc. rather than an honest, thoughtful dialogue.

Google aggregate vs. bilateral trade deficit.

Super short:  the USA does not need to be a net consumer with individual trade partners.   We have chosen to be.   Primarily because consumers like lower prices for the same level of quality.   A bilateral trade deficit is not ipso facto bad.   What is bad (at least not desirable in the long term) is an aggregate trade deficit.

Trump's public humiliation, bullying threats rather than private negotiation is a stupidly counterproductive tactic for dealing with international trade partners.

Drakk, your point is that we have not tried this tactic before so, even though the potential downside is steep, it is worth trying, Right? 

TiG, your point is that , while it may (or may not) work tactically, in the long term, it is a poor strategy because it makes our trading partners not trust that we are stable because we are all willy-nilly all over the place, aka, not dealing in good faith? 

Could you both entertain the notion of the other? I mean "Try it on" so to speak? Just let it slide over and then make the argument from the other person's perspective? 

The tactic of publicly threatening a trade partner at the onset is a stupid tactic.   I do not agree that it makes sense to try a stupid tactic when there are plenty of much smarter, more productive tactics for both short and long term objectives.

This is a new administration.   Logically this is a fresh start.   But Trump stupidly kicks off this new start by publicly threatening our trade partners rather than privately engaging them.

Your not playing!

"No," I guess would be the answer.

Think of it as a game. I mean, that is all this is anyways, a way to occupy our time. 

Can you make the argument of the person you are talking to. I just thought that it would be an interesting exercise. If you can make the argument from the other person's POV, just going through the exercise should let you ...not empathize but maybe  ...see more clearly the why's of the argumenture. (Don't worry, that is not an English word, or a French, for that matter. I just made it up because it sounded like it fit.) It always helps me.

Can you make the argument of the person you are talking to.

It would be a stupid argument Thomas.   I have no idea how I would argue that it is smart to begin a new administration by publicly threatening our closest trade partners rather than engaging them privately.

I support the idea of not repeating something that we deem to have not worked.   But there are so many different ways to approach this privately, with normal diplomatic negotiations that should be used before having the PotUS make an ass of himself and our nation by publicly trying to bully other nations ... at the onset.

Drakk, your point is that we have not tried this tactic before so, even though the potential downside is steep, it is worth trying, Right?

Close. I don't know if it is worth trying. It's more that I'm willing to see what happens.

 Could you both entertain the notion of the other? I mean "Try it on" so to speak? Just let it slide over and then make the argument from the other person's perspective?

No. For two reasons. I'm tired of the crap and he's not even talking about the subject of the seed. Tariffs primarily as a political tool, not an economic one. I'm done with the subject he tried to change it to. 

Tariffs primarily as a political tool, not an economic one.

What bullshit!   My original post was a direct response to the points the speaker made in his video.   He made the points, I opined.

Then you made points and I opined.

Now you try to claim I am trying to change the subject of the seed.   How dishonest.

Allright. That two 'No's. Can't say I did not try. 

Victor Davis Hanson is a far right intellectual.

The argument of this seed , to have any other worth at all has to make a big assumption,  that being that Trump is a patriotic American.

There is absolutely no evidence of that and there never has been. 

But he specializes in ancient warfare. Right up his alley.