Trump is my favourite comedian of the year already (22 Viewers)

PVA said:

I wonder at what point the MAGA cultists might admit they've made a mistake.

Is owning the libs worth losing your car? Your house? Your job?

Click to expand...

Plenty have said they are happy to suffer if it means Daddy Trump’s plan succeeds

Has anyone ever been as consistently and spectacularly wrong as Daniel Hannan?

It's actually quite impressive how shit he is.

Brighton Sky Blue said:

The preferred strategy of declaring a trade war on the entire world is an interesting gambit tbf.

Click to expand...

That’s your spin. The US tariffs are half of what is currently imposed by the nations impacted in the case of India, Canada, China, Mexico and the EU.

Hence we get off lightly because our trade tariff regimes are liberalised.

The green subsidies Biden implemented were designed to prise manufacturing jobs from global markets hence the EU followed suit in a pseudo-trade war.

PVA said:

I wonder at what point the MAGA cultists might admit they've made a mistake.

Is owning the libs worth losing your car? Your house? Your job?

Click to expand...

I still think there’s a chance he won’t see out the term. At some point people will realise they’ve been had.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

That’s your spin. The US tariffs are half of what is currently imposed by the nations impacted in the case of India, Canada, China, Mexico and the EU.

Hence we get off lightly because our trade tariff regimes are liberalised.

The green subsidies Biden implemented were designed to prise manufacturing jobs from global markets hence the EU followed suit in a pseudo-trade war.

Click to expand...

That’s if you actually believe Trump’s weird game show card.

Sick Boy said:

What exactly is the opportunity here?

Click to expand...

It's a great opportunity to make a good trade deal with the US.

Or... we could just throw a strop.

Sick Boy said:

That’s if you actually believe Trump’s weird game show card.

Click to expand...

I can’t speak for individual countries, but from past experiences, India, Canada, China, Australia and the EU are a lot more protectionist than the US. So there’s a legitimate argument to correct that imbalance.

The confusing and counterproductive elements of the policy is where they’ve imposed levies on countries such as ourselves where the trade tariffs are balanced. Japan, the US and the ourselves had the lowest MFN duty rates globally of major economies. This is why I believe the policy will backfire in places, especially now that China, Japan and Korea are in serious talks of liberalising trade between themselves.

SBT said:

If the tariffs are indeed intended as a negotiation tactic then the whole point of them is to be unwound. A Democratic president would also end the tariffs within hours of being inaugurated.

Click to expand...

That depends on the other side reducing their tariffs and given the EU is already planning retaliatory tariffs, that seems unlikely.

The last point isn’t even true because the steel and aluminium countervailing duties imposed in Trump’s first administration were still active in 2023 and were paused until after the election. It also relies on the democrats winning the next election which isn’t a guarantee.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

It's a great opportunity to make a good trade deal with the US.

Or... we could just throw a strop.

Click to expand...

Any trade deal would likely take years to negotiate and inevitably include farm produce, which wouldn't go down well politically.
The UK retaliating with tariffs of its own would hardly be strop. On the other hand, being dictated to and meekly accepting what the US says would be the ultimate cuck move.

Sick Boy said:

Any trade deal would likely take years to negotiate and inevitably include farm produce, which wouldn't go down well politically.
The UK retaliating with tariffs of its own would hardly be strop. On the other hand, being dictated to and meekly accepting what the US says would be the ultimate cuck move.

Click to expand...

What's a cuck move is being still in tantrum mode about the result of the referendum in 2016, and stopping it from letting us make progress, including good trade deals of our own. The fact of the matter is that this should have been done with the US years ago.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using tarrifs and setting rules of our own, but we are clearly in a better place than the EU is with America and we should use that to our advantage. This is a better opportunity than ever to do something with them. It makes a lot more sense than just using it as a political football for our weak as shit politicians to pretend they look hard. The same way they didn't really care about Ukraine but suddenly started being compassionate with the “coalition of the willing” bullshit (which has since gone quiet) because the US started making noise.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

What's a cuck move is being still in tantrum mode about the result of the referendum in 2016, and stopping it from letting us make progress, including good trade deals of our own. The fact of the matter is that this should have been done with the US years ago.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using tarrifs and setting rules of our own, but we are clearly in a better place than the EU is with America and we should use that to our advantage. This is a better opportunity than ever to do something with them. It makes a lot more sense than just using it as a political football for our weak as shit politicians to pretend they look hard. The same way they didn't really care about Ukraine but suddenly started being compassionate with the “coalition of the willing” bullshit (which has since gone quiet) because the US started making noise.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who still talks about Brexit these days, let alone has a tantrum about it. Do you?

Also, since Brexit, nothing has stopped the UK from making progress and good trade deals of its own.

He wouldn't care so much if the EU sold less in the USA. And we've also seen how he's happy to just disregard trade parters to suit his own agenda.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

I can’t speak for individual countries, but from past experiences, India, Canada, China, Australia and the EU are a lot more protectionist than the US. So there’s a legitimate argument to correct that imbalance.

The confusing and counterproductive elements of the policy is where they’ve imposed levies on countries such as ourselves where the trade tariffs are balanced. Japan, the US and the ourselves had the lowest MFN duty rates globally of major economies. This is why I believe the policy will backfire in places, especially now that China, Japan and Korea are in serious talks of liberalising trade between themselves.



That depends on the other side reducing their tariffs and given the EU is already planning retaliatory tariffs, that seems unlikely.

The last point isn’t even true because the steel and aluminium countervailing duties imposed in Trump’s first administration were still active in 2023 and were paused until after the election. It also relies on the democrats winning the next election which isn’t a guarantee.

Click to expand...

Just for clarity, these aren't reciprocal tariffs, that's straight up Trump bullshit.

Trump's tariffs are based on the trade imbalance between the US and the countries involved. (Excepting Russia of course, which also runs a substantial trade imbalance in normal times but is exempted from tariffs purely on a presidential whim...)

Also, another correction I'm sure you don't mind me highlighting; the US might be our biggest single country trade partner, but we trade four times that with the EU as a whole.

It might be worth thinking which side our bread is buttered if it comes to picking a side here.

As for whether the tariffs will make America great again, history isn't really on Trump's side here. Protectionism didn't end well for anyone last time, including the U.S..

duffer said:

Just for clarity, these aren't reciprocal tariffs, that's straight up Trump bullshit.

Trump's tariffs are based on the trade imbalance between the US and the countries involved. (Excepting Russia of course, which also runs a substantial trade imbalance in normal times but is exempted from tariffs purely on a presidential whim...)

Also, another correction I'm sure you don't mind me highlighting; the US might be our biggest single country trade partner, but we trade four times that with the EU as a whole.

It might be worth thinking which side our bread is buttered if it comes to picking a side here.

As for whether the tariffs will make America great again, history isn't really on Trump's side here. Protectionism didn't end well for anyone last time, including the U.S..

As Trump threatens tariffs, is US or EU trade more valuable to the UK?

As Donald Trump wields the threat of tariffs on EU and even UK goods, which industries would be worst affected and could the two trading partners develop closer ties? Data correspondent Alicja Hagopian reports

www.independent.co.uk

Why is Russia missing from Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs list? - Times of India

International-Business News: President Donald Trump announced broad tariffs affecting most nations, excluding Russia, citing existing sanctions that limit trade. Despite seeking e

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Click to expand...

Yeah it's mad how people are just swallowing his bullshit and disinformation.

Enjoying apologists for an economic plan fronted by a repeat bankrupt that can't seem to distinguish between tariffs and a trade deficit / surplus. Noice.

Almost as bleak as him saying the US is 'raped & pillaged' as he strongarms Ukraine into letting him rinse their natural resources. You love to see it.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

It's a great opportunity to make a good trade deal with the US.

Click to expand...

Why is this suddenly a great opportunity for a good trade deal?

We'd be starting negotiations from a worse position than we were in 24 hours ago.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

That’s your spin. The US tariffs are half of what is currently imposed by the nations impacted in the case of India, Canada, China, Mexico and the EU.

Hence we get off lightly because our trade tariff regimes are liberalised.

The green subsidies Biden implemented were designed to prise manufacturing jobs from global markets hence the EU followed suit in a pseudo-trade war.

Click to expand...

We got off lightly because we have trade deficit with the USA, no other reason.

Apparently they got these tariff percentages from asking ChatGPT

duffer said:

Just for clarity, these aren't reciprocal tariffs, that's straight up Trump bullshit.

Trump's tariffs are based on the trade imbalance between the US and the countries involved. (Excepting Russia of course, which also runs a substantial trade imbalance in normal times but is exempted from tariffs purely on a presidential whim...)

Also, another correction I'm sure you don't mind me highlighting; the US might be our biggest single country trade partner, but we trade four times that with the EU as a whole.

It might be worth thinking which side our bread is buttered if it comes to picking a side here.

As for whether the tariffs will make America great again, history isn't really on Trump's side here. Protectionism didn't end well for anyone last time, including the U.S..

As Trump threatens tariffs, is US or EU trade more valuable to the UK?

As Donald Trump wields the threat of tariffs on EU and even UK goods, which industries would be worst affected and could the two trading partners develop closer ties? Data correspondent Alicja Hagopian reports

www.independent.co.uk

Why is Russia missing from Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs list? - Times of India

International-Business News: President Donald Trump announced broad tariffs affecting most nations, excluding Russia, citing existing sanctions that limit trade. Despite seeking e

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Click to expand...

Is it not true that the EU, India, Canada, China, Mexico do not impose higher tariffs?

You’re not correcting me on anything. The US is still our biggest export partner. We have a trade agreement with the EU member states so I’m not sure what point you’re making is.

Russia, North Korea, Belarus and Cuba do not feature on the tariff regimes because of the existing sanctions regimes with those countries. That is a pretty self-evident point and any talk of an enhanced trade deal is dependent on a peace in Ukraine. It’s also being reported that the Trump admin is getting fed up with the Russians and may resort to escalating those sanctions regime to countries that trade with Russia (India and China).

fernandopartridge said:

We got off lightly because we have trade deficit with the USA, no other reason.

Click to expand...

Reductionist. Our market is objectively more open than the aforementioned countries.

The EU’s CAP and tariffs on automobiles have been longstanding grievances from a US POV.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

Is it not true that the EU, India, Canada, China, Mexico do not impose higher tariffs?

You’re not correcting me on anything. The US is still our biggest export partner. We have a trade agreement with the EU member states so I’m not sure what point you’re making is.

Russia, North Korea, Belarus and Cuba do not feature on the tariff regimes because of the existing sanctions regimes with those countries. That is a pretty self-evident point and any talk of an enhanced trade deal is dependent on a peace in Ukraine. It’s also being reported that the Trump admin is getting fed up with the Russians and may resort to escalating those sanctions regime to countries that trade with Russia (India and China).



Reductionist. Our market is objectively more open than the aforementioned countries.

The EU’s CAP and tariffs on automobiles have been longstanding grievances from a US POV.

Click to expand...

The UK tariff on finished cars with countries with whom it has no trade agreement is 10%, the same as the EU's.

I asked Grok to summarise the tariffs.

On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs, a sweeping set of trade measures aimed at reshaping U.S. economic policy. The initiative includes a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports from every country, effective April 5, 2025, with higher "reciprocal" tariffs imposed on dozens of nations starting April 9, 2025. These additional tariffs target countries Trump identified as having unfair trade practices, with rates such as 54% on China (including a prior 20% tariff), 46% on Vietnam, 49% on Cambodia, 34% on the European Union, and 20% on Japan, among others. The tariffs are intended to reduce U.S. trade deficits, boost domestic manufacturing, and generate revenue to potentially offset income taxes, with Trump claiming they would usher in a "golden age" of American industry.

The policy, enacted under the 1977 International Emergency Powers Act, has sparked significant controversy. Economists warn that it could raise consumer prices by thousands of dollars annually per household, risk stagflation (high inflation coupled with economic stagnation), and provoke retaliatory trade wars from allies and rivals like China, the EU, and Canada. Exemptions include certain goods from Canada and Mexico under the USMCA trade agreement, though pre-existing tariffs on items like steel and autos remain. Trump framed the move as a "declaration of economic independence," but critics argue it may lead to higher costs and economic instability rather than the promised prosperity.

Then I asked Grok to tell me how they were calculated.

Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025, consist of two main components: a universal 10% tariff on all imports to the U.S. and additional "reciprocal tariffs" applied to specific countries. The reciprocal tariffs are intended to address trade imbalances and perceived unfair trade practices, such as tariffs and non-tariff barriers imposed by other nations on U.S. goods. While the exact methodology has been debated, it appears the administration used a simplified formula to calculate these reciprocal tariffs, primarily based on trade deficits rather than a precise mirroring of each country's tariff rates.

The general approach for the reciprocal tariffs seems to involve taking the U.S. trade deficit in goods with a given country, dividing it by the total value of goods imported from that country, and then halving the result to arrive at the tariff rate. This method ties the tariff to the trade imbalance rather than directly matching the tariffs other countries impose on U.S. exports, despite the "reciprocal" label. The universal 10% tariff applies across the board, with the reciprocal tariffs added on top for about 90 countries.

Here are some examples based on available information and analysis:

China:

Trade Deficit and Imports: In 2024, the U.S. had a goods trade deficit with China of approximately $295.4 billion, with imports totaling $439.9 billion.

Calculation: Divide the trade deficit ($295.4 billion) by imports ($439.9 billion) to get 67%. Halve this (Trump described this as a "kind" approach), and round up to 34%.

Tariff Applied: A 34% reciprocal tariff was added to an existing 20% tariff, resulting in a total of 54% on Chinese imports, plus the 10% universal tariff in some interpretations, though typically the reciprocal rate is the dominant figure reported.

Result: Chinese goods face a 54% tariff rate.

European Union (EU):

Trade Deficit and Imports: Exact figures vary, but the U.S. trade deficit with the EU is significant. Assuming a deficit of around $200 billion and imports of $500 billion (simplified for illustration), the ratio would be 40%.

Calculation: Divide $200 billion by $500 billion to get 40%, then halve it to 20%.

Tariff Applied: The EU faces a 20% reciprocal tariff, plus the 10% universal tariff, though reports often highlight the 20% as the key rate.

Result: EU goods are subject to a 20% tariff.

Vietnam:

Trade Deficit and Imports: The U.S. had a trade deficit with Vietnam of about $100 billion, with imports around $110 billion.

Calculation: Divide $100 billion by $110 billion to get roughly 91%, then halve it to approximately 46%.

Tariff Applied: Vietnam faces a 46% reciprocal tariff, plus the 10% universal tariff.

Result: Vietnamese imports are hit with a 46% tariff.

India:

Trade Deficit and Imports: With a deficit of around $50 billion and imports of $100 billion (simplified), the ratio would be 50%.

Calculation: Divide $50 billion by $100 billion to get 50%, then halve it to 25% or 26% (adjusted per reports).

Tariff Applied: India faces a 26% reciprocal tariff, plus the 10% universal tariff.

Result: Indian goods incur a 26% tariff.

These calculations are approximations based on the observed pattern that the reciprocal tariff rates align with half the trade deficit-to-import ratio. The White House has claimed these rates also account for non-tariff barriers (e.g., currency manipulation, regulatory differences), but the formula appears primarily driven by trade deficit data rather than a detailed breakdown of foreign tariffs. Critics argue this oversimplifies complex trade dynamics and doesn’t truly reflect "reciprocity" in terms of matching specific tariffs imposed on U.S. exports.

The tariffs took effect with the universal 10% rate starting April 5, 2025, and the reciprocal rates on April 9, 2025, aiming to reduce the U.S. trade deficit and boost domestic manufacturing, though economists warn of potential price increases for American consumers.

Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:

Still, at least independence is now showing us some benifit. We got a much better tariff than the EU.

Put THAT on the side of a bus!

Click to expand...

Someone basic maths for you. Leaving the EU costs the UK economy £100B a year in lost trade. Last year we sold the US around £60B IIRC. You’re celebrating at best losing £100B to gain about £6B. I’m not sure that’s the win you think it is. That’s before you even factor in that the point of increasing tariffs is to to put a barrier up to trade so the reality is the amount we sell to the US is far more likely to decrease not increase while we’ll still be losing £100B year on year in lost trade with the EU. I’d take the 20% to regain the lost revenue with the EU. Why wouldn’t you?

Captain Dart said:

I asked Grok to summarise the tariffs.

Then I asked Grok to tell me how they were calculated.

Click to expand...

It's incredible that this apparently groundbreaking 'Liberation Day' was the result of someone asking ChatGPT or Grok what to do, and then going along with it.

Absolute madness.

PVA said:

It's incredible that this apparently groundbreaking 'Liberation Day' was the result of someone asking ChatGPT or Grok what to do, and then going along with it.

Absolute madness.

Click to expand...

Where’s that from?

duffer said:

It might be worth thinking which side our bread is buttered if it comes to picking a side here.

Click to expand...

Americans butter both sides then deep fry it

Mucca Mad Boys said:

Is it not true that the EU, India, Canada, China, Mexico do not impose higher tariffs?

You’re not correcting me on anything. The US is still our biggest export partner. We have a trade agreement with the EU member states so I’m not sure what point you’re making is.

Russia, North Korea, Belarus and Cuba do not feature on the tariff regimes because of the existing sanctions regimes with those countries. That is a pretty self-evident point and any talk of an enhanced trade deal is dependent on a peace in Ukraine. It’s also being reported that the Trump admin is getting fed up with the Russians and may resort to escalating those sanctions regime to countries that trade with Russia (India and China).



Reductionist. Our market is objectively more open than the aforementioned countries.

The EU’s CAP and tariffs on automobiles have been longstanding grievances from a US POV.

Click to expand...

ONS data, 2024... Goods and services...

Exports to the EU, 2024, 346.1 billion.

Exports to the US, 2024, 182.6 billion.

Therefore, by any definition, we export more to the EU than to the US. When you look at imports and exports, we trade more with the EU than the US. Why you can't grasp something as simple as this is rather beyond me. Numbers don't lie.

You seem to be a bit stuck on the reciprocal tariff stuff too. Trump's tariffs are quite clearly not based on reciprocity - see below for the actual workings.

The US has ongoing sanctions on Iran, but has also listed 10% tariffs for them. So it's not at all "self-evident" why Russia has been left out.

I'm intrigued, why do you feel the need to keep making stuff up to support the man?

Sick Boy said:

Where’s that from?

Click to expand...

I think the poster put the cart before the horse.

duffer said:

ONS data, 2024... Goods and services...

Exports to the EU, 2024, 346.1 billion.

Exports to the US, 2024, 182.6 billion.

Therefore, by any definition, we export more to the EU than to the US. When you look at imports and exports, we trade more with the EU than the US. Why you can't grasp something as simple as this is rather beyond me. Numbers don't lie.

You seem to be a bit stuck on the reciprocal tariff stuff too. Trump's tariffs are quite clearly not based on reciprocity - see below for the actual workings.

The US has ongoing sanctions on Iran, but has also listed 10% tariffs for them. So it's not at all "self-evident" why Russia has been left out.

I'm intrigued, why do you feel the need to keep making stuff up to support the man?

How were Donald Trump's tariffs calculated?

Analysts have questioned claims that new tariffs are reciprocal and based on those charged against the US.

www.bbc.com

Click to expand...

We do indeed trade more with the EU27 than the USA. That still doesn’t change that the USA is our top export market. Both are true statements.

This is just an unnecessary detour because we have a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU and that’s not at risk because of Trump’s tariffs. So there is a chance that we can leverage that unique position as a ‘pivot’ between the two markets if we get a FTA with the US.

The final rates are based on ‘x, y and z’ trade deficits but it ultinately comes down to reciprocity. The main markets targeted levy higher import tariffs (and non-tariff restrictions) on US producers which has in part fuelled those deficits.

Last point, why is anyone upset that a country has unilaterally increased tariffs? It’s their prerogative to do so. For example, what logic did India put into imposing a 150% tariff on scotch whiskey (and other luxury items), 60-100% on cars or 20% on mobile phones? We could go through other global examples.

If you want to be a fellow free-marketeer and want to harmonise duties across all nations, feel free to join the club. However, if you’re selectively choosing to be outrageous at the USA, it’s a rather inconsistent argument for you to make.

My first post on this topic was this policy would ultimately backfire but there are legitimate and rational reasons to pursue these policies.

Fun to see people defend Trump's approach by default while Reeves gets branded as out of her depth or as 'Rachel from Accounts'.

One is using policies based on fag packet maths and another is working closely with an oversight body to put policies together.

You've gotta love that misogyny. To be clear, I'm fuming at most of Labour's decisions and their direction since they took power.

Sick Boy said:

Where’s that from?

Click to expand...

The tariff figures are an absolute nonsense, but if you ask ChatGPT how you coukt theoretically level the playing field it gives you the formula that the US have used.

The funniest part is the Whitehouse then denied they'd used this basic formula, and actually the calculation was much more complex. To prove it they posted a really fancy looking equation...

...but that was the exact same formula, with a load of Greek letters and symbols to make it look more complex

PVA said:

The tariff figures are an absolute nonsense, but if you ask ChatGPT how you coukt theoretically level the playing field it gives you the formula that the US have used.

The funniest part is the Whitehouse then denied they'd used this basic formula, and actually the calculation was much more complex. To prove it they posted a really fancy looking equation...

...but that was the exact same formula, with a load of Greek letters and symbols to make it look more complex

Click to expand...

And added tarriff to countries without people

Sky Blue Pete said:

And added tarriff to countries without people

Click to expand...

and us military bases

$2trillion wiped off Wall Street. It’s going well so far then…more like recession day.

Sick Boy said:

$2trillion wiped off Wall Street. It’s going well so far then…more like recession day.

Click to expand...

Is he not just shorting the market for his mates

Is America great again yet?