Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 18/03/25

1589590592594595723

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭golfball37


    Calling people fascist for saying Biden wasn’t compus mentus a few years ago is really working out now isn’t it.

    Trump is simply a symptom of a corrupt political system that favours the usual suspects. He is just looking to favour his own types and doesn’t care about social policy at all.

    Telling poor people they are racist because they bought what Trump was selling has only emboldened him and his cult.

    The same is already happening in Ireland . I hope we handle this with a little more maturity than the yanks but I’ll hold my breath on that one



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Sanders would be an awful leader right now, because he is every bit as protectionist and anti-free trade as Trump.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,906 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    regarding tariffs, can someone explain the following to me:

    say you have market A with 10 people, and market B with 100 people.

    if market A has access to market B it will increase their revenue 10x (assuming same market share)

    if market B wants to access market A it will increase their revenue by .1x.

    fundamentally, is there anything wrong with charging someone some sort of fee to access a market that will massively increase their revenue?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,866 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    He's probably just heard that Mike Vance was awarded the profile in courage award for 2025 by the JFK Library foundation for certifying Biden's election in 2020 and refusing to do as Trump wanted. As far as I could find out, the library gets no federal funding from the Govt so Trump can't defund it.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    fundamentally, is there anything wrong with charging someone some sort of fee to access a market that will massively increase their revenue?

    Tariffs aren't charging them a fee to access a market.

    The whole thing is utterly farcical. US manufacturing is low and they rely on imported goods because they are an insanely rich country who have better and more lucrative things to be doing. It would be like Musk complaining his cleaner isn't buying a Tesla off him to even out their trade balance as opposed to him just acknowledging his is offshoring tasks to someone else and using his time more fruitfully (or more damagingly of late).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,866 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    The wikipedia entry for him has him as an investor and hedge fund manager and before his Govt service he was a partner at Soros Fund management. That, for a Trump choice, is some CV.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,906 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    i thought a tariff was essentially an import charge - you pay a charge to access a (bigger) market.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    The importer pays the charge, not the one selling into the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,906 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    i think thats grand. at its most basic level is a tariff a charge to access to bigger market?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭greenfield21


    This is so true...

    Bessent in his latest interview nails it…

    The top 10% of Americans own 88% of equities, 88% of the stock market

    - The next 40% owns 12% of the stock market

    - The bottom 50% has debt

    -Summer of 2024 more Americans were using food banks than they ever have in history



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    No, at its most basic level it is not. It is a charge levied on the bigger market. The person accessing the bigger market doesn't pay a dime (there will potentially be price impacts on their product, but it gets very complicated very quickly).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,080 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    And making food more expensive helps the poor?

    The tariffs were not targeted. They even apply to foodstuffs that the US can't grow, like coffee and bananas.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I didn't realise the argument was now that Bernie Sanders was right all along.

    Also, did you listen to the Obama clip in that tweet!? It in no way supports their stupid argument.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,906 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    is that true, cos intuitively that makes no sense?

    why would i pay a fee to access a smaller market that i already operate in?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,032 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    It's not paid by supplier.

    It's paid by importer, who passes cost on to consumer.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Well, what they are doing truly does make no sense. But I don't think you are grasping the concept of what tariffs fundamentally are.

    The US is not charging Colombian companies to be able to sell coffee into the US. It is charging US customers for purchasing coffee from Colombia. Because they have some perverse logic that it will force Americans to buy non-existent American coffee instead.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,313 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The early signs are that this tariff thing has already gone totally pear shaped. You wouldn't see the stock markets falling to this degree if there were just some slightly anxious jitters around the announcements.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    But none of the tariffs Trump imposed have been reciprocal though. I mean you hardly believe a load of penguins have tariffs on the US do you? Or that a US base on an island tariffed the US also? Not to mention the ludicrous figures Trump came up with either?

    April 2025…. Trump and DOGE have closed those very same food banks through cutting funding. That's one way to claim a reduction in food banks right?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,866 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    To show how the US/UK trading relationship stands of today following the tariff introduction by Trump, Waterstones, the UK bookshop Co has paused shipping books to Barnes and Noble [part of the Waterstones conglomerate] bookstores in the US.

    Delivery Options | Waterstones.com Help | Waterstones

    3rd April 2025: We regret that we are currently unable to accept or ship orders to the US, while we establish options to be compliant with the new tariffs. Please consult the latest information …

    Delivery Options | Waterstones.com Help | Waterstones

    3rd April 2025: We regret that we are currently unable to accept or ship orders to the US, while we establish options to be compliant with the new tariffs. Please consult the latest information.

    Edit:

    Delivery Options | Waterstones.com Help | Waterstones

    3rd April 2025: We regret that we are currently unable to accept or ship orders to the US, while we establish options to be compliant with the new tariffs. Please consult the latest information …

    I clicked on the link reference above but was unable to find the latest information mentioned by Waterstones.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,906 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    i thought tariffs are an import duty (call that what you will) to access a larger market?

    i go back to my example of market A and market B. is this not what is happening?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,215 ✭✭✭Economics101


    I looked at the Nancy Pelosi speech you referenced. It was all about trade with China, and China's unacceptable practices. It was a million miles removed from a blanket policy of universal tariffs on friends and foes alike. It was driven by real economic concerns, not by ideology or plain nonsense (e.g. "they are ripping us off").

    Be careful of what your reference.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    It's funny as books were always regarded as tariff free or at the very least the lowest tariff, same for zero VAT on books. Books are also cheaper to post then anything else as they get a special rate. It's the weirdest of things to tariff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Thought I may have been losing my marbles by remembering 'the chart' from somewhere… but no, all is fine



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,584 ✭✭✭McFly85


    The Lesotho tariff is the clearest example of the total farce this is.

    Lesotho is one of the poorest countries in the world. It doesn’t have an income tax system and the money gained from exports are used in lieu of that. They sell about $250 million of diamonds to the US, and buy about $7 million in US goods.

    Trump has decided that this is hugely unfair and that Lesotho is screwing them because they sell something the US doesn’t have to them while also not spending literally all of the money they get from those sales on stuff from the US they don’t need.

    So now Lesotho has a 90% tariff put upon its exports, make it either undesirable for importers or massively more expensive for US consumers.

    Lesotho loses out, the American people lose out, and all because the man in charge is a complete cretin.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 268 ✭✭Aurelian


    No. Tariffs are an extra tax on companies who want to sell foreign made products.

    For example, if an American store wants to sell Irish butter, the American store now has to pay the American government an extra 20% tax or Tariff.

    The idea of tarrifs is that you make foreign products so expensive that people won't buy them and switch to using local products. But it's a pre WW2 idea as no country can remotely make everything they need anymore.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,906 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    For example, if an American store wants to sell Irish butter, the American store now has to pay the American government an extra 20% tax or Tariff.

    do they not just recharge that to the irish butter company?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭mikewest


    No, the consumer pays the tariff, always, everytime

    The importer may pay a percentage, nominally the "tariff" but this elevated cost is passed on to the wholesaler who applies their percentage and the retailer/ consumer pays the elevated price, the consumer always pays.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Well said, the customer being the last in the line is always the one to be screwed.

    When you are the customer it doesn't matter who is doing the screwing - whether it's the Green New Deal crowd, the Build Back Better crowd or the MAGA crowd.

    At least with the MAGA crowd their intentions are morally a bit better. And for us outside the USA the following chart should offer some comfort:

    image.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,399 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    Who ever imports the butter (think who ever is on the delivery address in the US) gets a bill from US customs for 20% of the value of the butter (including shipping and insurance). Once they pay US customs the bill, their order will be released from customs. In that situation, the supplier (the Irish butter company) has already been paid and wouldn't entertain any kind of recharge/invoice to them.



Advertisement