President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
a bit more granular data here
pre trump we were 2.2%
and a lot of those tariffs rates are artificially lower as they are hidden due to creative language whereas a lot of it comes in the form of general taxes which are rebated to local companies or just labeling it as VAT to avoid WTO restrictions
the "real tariff" is much higher
and this is actually far too low, a 20k buick can't be bought for less than 45k in china
Yes , if you are maga and try to manipulate the constitution .
But to make the point clear to trumpsters and you , lapping up incessantly far right maga bs (for trollling purpose or because u are maga , who knows shrug) , here is an interesting quote from the 12th amendment .[...]
Housenuts is mongidig-levels of MAGA. He merely uses the "You can't take a joke, bro"-rhetoric as opposed to openly practicing serfdom.
To be clear, this is not an opinion I hold because of this discussion, though it certainly affirms that my assessment was correct.
let's be sure to focus on singapore (which is only the case because it operates as a trade hub which is a unique situation other countries can't replicate) and ignore the other 9
pre trump we were 2.2%
and a lot of those tariffs rates are artificially lower as they are hidden due to creative language whereas a lot of it comes in the form of general taxes which are rebated to local companies or just labeling it as VAT to avoid WTO restrictions
the "real tariff" is much higher
and this is actually far too low, a 20k buick can't be bought for less than 45k in china
why are you using chatgpt as a source? you know that it is capable of giving you faulty data or outright fabrications right?
also, that certain countries have tariffs that are growing doesn't mean that tariffs are beneficial for the largest economy in the world. and, it also doesn't mean that these particular tariffs are any good. you're going to need a stronger argument than correlation, even if I grant you all the data as being veridical.
why are you using chatgpt as a source? you know that it is capable of giving you faulty data or outright fabrications right?
also, that certain countries have tariffs that are growing doesn't mean that tariffs are beneficial for the largest economy in the world. and, it also doesn't mean that these particular tariffs are any good. you're going to need a stronger argument than correlation, even if I grant you all the data as being veridical.
show the data is wrong then
even if it is generally off, which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, it's still directionally correct and that's the point
anti tariff people are by and large anti tariff because a combination of hating anything tied to trump and staunchly supporting the status quo - wholly ignoring that for the most successful economies in the world, tariffs are the norm
You can't buy Chinese cars here at all, for any price.
I can't really tell what your point is, that tariffs are a great tool for growth?
this is a pretty good argument for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samari...)
i earlier posted graphs of african gdp growth pre washington consensus, during, and post when they pivoted to china and of course that was met with "africa is not a country" strawmen
this is a pretty good argument for it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samari...)
i earlier posted graphs of african gdp growth pre washington consensus, during, and post when they pivoted to china and of course that was met with "africa is not a country" strawmen
I don't think anyone is arguing that tariffs in themselves are bad. They are incredibly effective when applied strategically.
This implementation is haphazard and piss poor and higher than any of the countries you listed, which were broadly **** tier developing economies in the 1970s
Like I actually do believe the goal here is to devalue the dollar and refinance some debt. This will certainly do it. I think they expect that this will largely leave our global standing unaffected but I also think they are wrong.
I wish chatgpt was banned here.
Rickroll sources:
chatgpt and wikipedia.
Solid
It isn't the duty of people who disagree with you to show that A data is correct. It is on you to be sure you are using the right numbers.
Anything else is just an invite to letting AI slop hijack every debate, as it takes seconds to make an AI reply, while it can take anything from minutes to days to fact-check it (depending on context). Such a disparity of effort would allow AI slop to flood and drown any debate.
I'll give credit for including the prompt, as posting any AI reply without the prompt is effectively useless, as AI can be told to support most things. Try "give me data that supports X" vs "show data relevant for X" vs "show me data that shows why X is wrong" for example.
The same way Gerald Ford became president, without being elected (to the presidency or even the vice presidency).
he was appointed vp and its fine if he can be elected as such while a 2 term president cant be appointed .
12th amendment
https://constitution.congress.gov/consti...
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
I don't think anyone is arguing that tariffs in themselves are bad. They are incredibly effective when applied strategically.
This implementation is haphazard and piss poor and higher than any of the countries you listed, which were broadly **** tier developing economies in the 1970s
Like I actually do believe the goal here is to devalue the dollar and refinance some debt. This will certainly do it. I think they expect that this will largely leave our global standing unaffected but I also thi
I agree, Trump is a buffoon unable to implement it correctly
But that doesn’t mean tariffs as an economic device should be dismissed out of hand
It’s so tribal that i sometimes wonder if i posted an image of him using a knife and fork that a new thread would spawn advocating eating only with hands and chopsticks
Yeah one of FDRs major campaign themes was on the failure of broad protectionism which is hard to argue against and exactly what Trump is doing....with inflation a major concern even before the tariffs lol.
A tiny french Island which exported one cargo of fish to the US in 2024 was hit with the highest tariffs, 50%.
I think calling Trump's policies "broad protectionism" is questionable. Someone somewhere spent 3-4 minutes on compiling this list of tariffs (and that is being generous), and through the layers of incompetence, corruption and lack integrity that is the Trump administration it has been filtered to look like policy.
I know MAGA won't get onboard with this idea, but if you want to accomplish a policy goal, you sort of need a plan for how to do that in a competent manner. You can't just make **** up and wave it around.
This is an "alter Hurrican map with sharpie"-moment, just one with far higher stakes. Like Sharpiegate, the constant variable is Trump being an idiot.
I don't think anyone is arguing that tariffs in themselves are bad. They are incredibly effective when applied strategically.
This implementation is haphazard and piss poor and higher than any of the countries you listed, which were broadly **** tier developing economies in the 1970s
Like I actually do believe the goal here is to devalue the dollar and refinance some debt. This will certainly do it. I think they expect that this will largely leave our global standing unaffected but I also thi
lol? a lot of us here and elsewhere are for first world countries, especially broad tariffs , especially with allies (!!!!)
It isn't the duty of people who disagree with you to show that A data is correct. It is on you to be sure you are using the right numbers.
Anything else is just an invite to letting AI slop hijack every debate, as it takes seconds to make an AI reply, while it can take anything from minutes to days to fact-check it (depending on context). Such a disparity of effort would allow AI slop to flood and drown any debate.
I'll give credit for including the prompt, as posting any AI reply without the pro
I used to be a journalist working a Beijing desk that covered economics and politics - those numbers are exactly what i expected them to be more or less
Its patently absurd that one side is sharing nothing but personal opinions and anecdotes and the minute an opposing viewpoint shows up with supporting data it’s dismissed out of hand and called into question… again on a whim and hunch not with actual facts
You guys are absolute clowns
Roughly 33% of the current US national debt, is unpaid tax cuts to the billionaire class.
LOL i had missed that.
I know where this misconception comes from, and it's probably in good faith, but it stems from the *insane* way your media talks about deficits.
Sometimes they give you a YEARLY FIGURE, sometimes they give you a FIGURE OVER A DECADE. The latter is because several law provision require to estimate the effects on the budget over a decade basically.
So, the Trump tax cut done at deficit was estimated at 1 trillion OVER A DECADE, the deficit (which you mistakenly called the US national debt) is on track to perhaps reach 3 trillions PER YEAR currently.
So you thought 1/3 of that was for the unfunded tax cuts.
Instead (if the deficit ends up at 3 trillions, which isn't obvious, for 2025), it is 1/10 of that, 3.3%. It was 5-6% OF THE DEFICIT in 2024.
More clowns into the car!
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/03/mehmet-oz-confirmation-medicare-medicaid"]Mehmet Oz confirmed by US Senate to lead Medicare and Medicaid
[/URL]
Medical claims on The Dr. Oz Show
Quack Quack
LOL i had missed that.
I know where this misconception comes from, and it's probably in good faith, but it stems from the *insane* way your media talks about deficits.
Sometimes they give you a YEARLY FIGURE, sometimes they give you a FIGURE OVER A DECADE. The latter is because several law provision require to estimate the effects on the budget over a decade basically.
So, the Trump tax cut done at deficit was estimated at 1 trillion OVER A DECADE, the deficit (which you mistakenly called the US na
You also did the maths your way.
Freak post didn't imply 33% was for this year specifically.
I'd like to see the maths back to last post WW2 let's say.
You also did the maths your way.
Freak post didn't imply 33% was for this year specifically.
I'd like to see the maths back to last post WW2 let's say.
oh sure so "unfunded tax cuts" of 12T cumulative (lolololol).
Tax rates on the rich aren't very different than when Clinton balanced the budget (except the recent unfunded Trump tax cut).
The vast majority of the debt has been accumulated recently for obvious reasons. Debt was 5.5T when Clinton balanced the budget in 1998.
It's 36T now.
Tell me how 12T of that is unfunded tax cuts?
What went unfunded were significative portions of medicaid, medicare, social security and defense expenses. Those numbers kept increasing every year as a % of gdp, revenue didn't.
Revenue is fairly stable as a % of gdp though, so that means that basically the entirety of the debt or close to it comes from increases in EXPENDITURES not matched by increases in revenue. Not tax cuts.
oh sure so "unfunded tax cuts" of 12T cumulative (lolololol).
Tax rates on the rich aren't very different than when Clinton balanced the budget (except the recent unfunded Trump tax cut).
The vast majority of the debt has been accumulated recently for obvious reasons. Debt was 5.5T when Clinton balanced the budget in 1998.
It's 36T now.
Tell me how 12T of that is unfunded tax cuts?
What went unfunded were significative portions of medicaid, medicare, social security and defense expenses. Those numbe
I'm not a statistician so I'm not as an expert as you are in the field.
It seems you are completely ignoring impact of interest on the debt.
Idk what % tax cut is, and that is exactly why I asked because it's interesting.
Btw I could care less about how americans redistribute their wealth among their citizens.
I just want to understand the claim.
Well, looks like the Cockwomble is going to precipitate a global stock market crash. We will know by Tuesday, I would guess.
All 3 indices down another 3% premarket
We saved the economy, guys!
You really gotta hand it to trump. The guy is definitely running this country like he runs his businesses
