A case of everything old being new again and an American president and electorate being ignorant of history. What Is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? History, Effect and Reaction Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act
Most of the arguments here are missing the point entirely. Trump isn't proposing these particular tariffs as an economic proposal. He is proposing them on a temporary basis to get Mexico, Canada and China to man up. Of course, they're all whining about it. That's the whole point. That's what Trump wants. We know why they're whining though.
Interesting seeing MAGA talk about Biden keeping Trump's tariffs. . . NOW. Because for the last 4 years they basically refused to admit it was happening. In fact, some of the "intellectual elites" in that camp went so far as to call him Pro-China. Oh well, I guess MAGA and Hypocrisy are basically synonyms now. Tariffs on China make sense. We need to speed up the decoupling and too many American companies are waffling on that, trying to have their cake and eat it too (Musk, for instance). Mexico and Canada make no sense whatsoever - and would violate Trump's own NAFTA II - unless this is some kind of leverage to get Mexico more on board with taking on the cartels and/or more help at THEIR border. I don't get the Canada part at all.
Geopolitics. Whether due to War, Cold War or just the collapse of their economic system, China is going away. And the sooner we make that adjustment the better. Trade IS geopolitics for the CCP. Getting the west as dependent on them for as much as possible is a huge part of their overall grand strategy. Time to, as Barney Fife would say, "Nip it!!"
I think this is less about "helping" US businesses and more about "forcing" US and Foreign businesses to build things here. That said, I don't see Mexico as a competitor in this regards, but as a partner. Supply CHAINS encompass multiple facilities. Thus, a job in Mexico is also a job (or two) in the US, one in Columbia, etc.
Or maybe we allow Nippon Steel to buy decrepit US Steel and bring it into the 21st Century. Nah, let's pretend it's 1982 instead.
man up for what? Stopping fentanyl? We've spent billions on trying to get rid of all kinds of drugs & almost always made the problem worse. It won't happen, but if fentanyl goes away a worse drug will take its place. Groundhog Day. peeps gonna wonder why their auto ins increases.....he he.
I t was far more than you know, Obviously... part of that plan allowed for Europe to put whatever tariff amount they wanted on our good coming from the U.S.A. Look it up. Same with Japan.
That's not the rub, though, is it? The rub is that China are intentionally dumping fentanyl into the U.S. and that China have made promises in the past regarding fentanyl they have since reneged on. Trump's position is that we don't continue freely bankrolling such a regime who is actively engaged in an assault upon our population. And it seems you're making an argument for the decriminalization of fentanyl trafficking, which is insane, even coming from you. As someone myself who would be okay with decriminalization of certain street drugs, fentanyl doesn't make that list. It is too potent, too deadly. The Groundhog Day reference doesn't work for me. This is not something to joke about.
Trump doesn't even know the reason for the tariffs. At first it was about brining back manufacturing jobs, then it was about paying for tax cuts and now it's about the border. Give it another month he will use a different reason. All I know is no matter the reason MAGA will twist themselves into a pretzel figuring out how to defend it
Funny, considering tariffs have been used lots of times before for all 3 of those items by presidents not named Trump.
the 25% tariffs on Mexico & Canada are a gift to China not a punishment. The Groundhog Day ref is to the notion that we can win the drug war by stamping out the supply. It will not work. this is just laziness masquerading as doing something & it is exceedingly costly
So you're answer to the spike in overdose deaths at the hands of fentanyl is to sit back and do nothing? Interesting take. I'm sure that lines up with your position on gun regulation perfectly.
