Trump, the Art of the Deal, Negotiations 101 & Tariffs
Microsoft just raised X box prices in the United States because of Trump tariffs. ...
Not insignificant hikes...
https://www.polygon.com/news/581992/xbo … ncrease-usIf tariffs are so great, why are so many companies begging for exemptions from them?
If tariffs are so great, why did Trump beg Amazon not to show the impact of the tariffs to consumers?
I don’t understand.... How do tariffs simultaneously bring in so much money to replace the income tax AND bring jobs here (which reduce imports and tariffs)
That's some kind of magic isn't itThis is actually how tariffs work...
https://x.com/RBReich/status/1916935447898689785Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said that planned US tariffs on foreign imports will add $900 million in costs in the current period. “We estimate the impact to add $900 million to our costs,” he told analysts on a conference call after releasing quarterly financial results.
Something we should be cheering??Yikes, it would be great to hear the rest of Tim's thoughts ---
"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $95.4 billion, up 5 percent year over year, and quarterly diluted earnings per share of $1.65, up 8 percent year over year. “Today Apple is reporting strong quarterly results, including double-digit growth in Services,” said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO.3 hours ago" https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/05/ … e's%20CEO.
Yes, during Apple's second-quarter earnings call on May 1, 2025, CEO Tim Cook stated that the company estimates U.S. tariffs on foreign imports will add approximately $900 million to its costs for the current quarter. He emphasized that this estimate is based on the assumption that existing global tariff rates and policies remain unchanged and that no new tariffs are introduced during the quarter. Cook also cautioned that this figure should not be used to predict future quarters, as there are unique factors benefiting the June quarter.
To mitigate the impact of these tariffs, Apple has been diversifying its supply chain. Most iPhones sold in the U.S. this quarter are being produced in India, while products like iPads, Macs, Apple Watches, and AirPods are primarily manufactured in Vietnam. Despite these shifts, China remains the main source for Apple's international product sales.
DESPITE the anticipated tariff-related costs, Apple reported STRONG financial RESULTS FOR THIS QUARTER, with revenue reaching $95.4 billion—a 5% year-over-year INCREASE—and net income of $24.78 billion. However, the company's stock experienced a decline in after-hours trading, likely due to concerns over the potential impact of tariffs on future earnings.
Plays a bit differently when all the facts are offered up. Im mean context matters.Fantastic for Apple, they are remaining profitable, wonderful for them. That really wasn't the point. Should we celebrate because Apple has shifted their supply chain to avoid tariffs? Doesn't that undercut Trump's scheme of collecting revenue to reduce the debt? Or does it impact his goal of reshoring the jobs lol?? Can't keep up with what the actual goal of this tariff nonsense is...
it’s reason to celebrate that they have moved their iPhone assembly line out of China due to trade war tariffs and instead of moving it to the United States, they are moving it to India to avoid the tariffs?. MAGA were conned again.... Apple is exempt from the tariffs and they're not reassuring those jobs LOL... Yeah a win-win for them
Yikes, it would be great to hear the rest of Tim's thoughts ---
"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $95.4 billion, up 5 percent year over year, and quarterly diluted earnings per share of $1.65, up 8 percent year over year. “Today Apple is reporting strong quarterly results, including double-digit growth in Services,” said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO.3 hours ago" https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/05/ … e's%20CEO.
Yes, during Apple's second-quarter earnings call on May 1, 2025, CEO Tim Cook stated that the company estimates U.S. tariffs on foreign imports will add approximately $900 million to its costs for the current quarter. He emphasized that this estimate is based on the assumption that existing global tariff rates and policies remain unchanged and that no new tariffs are introduced during the quarter. Cook also cautioned that this figure should not be used to predict future quarters, as there are unique factors benefiting the June quarter.
To mitigate the impact of these tariffs, Apple has been diversifying its supply chain. Most iPhones sold in the U.S. this quarter are being produced in India, while products like iPads, Macs, Apple Watches, and AirPods are primarily manufactured in Vietnam. Despite these shifts, China remains the main source for Apple's international product sales.
DESPITE the anticipated tariff-related costs, Apple reported STRONG financial RESULTS FOR THIS QUARTER, with revenue reaching $95.4 billion—a 5% year-over-year INCREASE—and net income of $24.78 billion. However, the company's stock experienced a decline in after-hours trading, likely due to concerns over the potential impact of tariffs on future earnings.
Trump is effectively engaged in an economic standoff with several major nations, but none pose as significant a challenge as China. Apple’s decision to shift more of its operations to India and Vietnam is a major development—one that’s bound to get China’s full attention. Tim Cook has turned up the pressure, and it’s a move that gives Trump considerable leverage in trade negotiations. If other companies follow Apple’s lead and pull out of China, we could see a deal materialize sooner rather than later. In many ways, this shift couldn’t come at a better time. Trump’s strategy is clear: hit China hard and fast—forcing them to the table before they lose the massive stream of U.S. business they’ve relied on for years.So we are supposed to applaud the fact that Apple has evaded the purpose of the tariffs? Actually.... What IS the purpose of the tariffs??
I am certainly applauding Cook's move, and here is why. Let me go into great detail to prevent my context from being skewed.
As Apple moves more of its manufacturing operations to Vietnam and India and begins reshoring some production to the United States, the decision may serve as a strong validation of former President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy against China. While Tim has openly opposed tariffs, arguing they increase costs, disrupt supply chains, and hurt American consumers, the company’s evolving global strategy closely aligns with what the Trump administration aimed to achieve through economic pressure.
At the heart of Trump’s trade war was a goal to reduce American corporate dependency on China. By imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese imports, the administration sought to make it more costly for U.S. companies to rely on Chinese manufacturing. Apple’s decision to shift significant production to India and Vietnam is exactly the kind of realignment Trump’s policies were designed to provoke. Every iPhone built outside of China weakens Beijing’s economic leverage over American tech companies.
Even more notably, Apple is also moving some of its manufacturing back into the United States. In partnership with TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company), Apple is investing in chip production facilities in Arizona, bringing high-tech manufacturing jobs to American soil. Apple also continues to rely on U.S.-based suppliers for components like glass and processors, demonstrating a partial reshoring strategy that matches Trump's call to “bring jobs home.”
These moves validate Trump’s broader pressure tactics. Apple, once heavily dependent on China, is proving that it is possible to diversify the supply chain. At the same time, strengthening ties with nations like India and Vietnam supports broader U.S. geopolitical goals in Asia.
Interestingly, despite their differing public stances, Donald Trump and Tim Cook appeared to have developed a good working relationship during Trump’s presidency. Cook was one of the few tech executives who maintained open and productive lines of communication with the White House. Trump often praised Cook for being a “great executive” and credited him with explaining complex tech manufacturing issues in clear terms. That relationship likely helped ease some policy tensions while also fostering practical outcomes, like Apple’s shift in supply chain strategy. (Tim attended Trump's inauguration front and center---)
Though Tim Cook may still prefer a world without tariffs, his actions increasingly align with the strategic goals Donald Trump set in motion. Apple’s evolving production model isn’t just a corporate pivot, it’s a case study in how sustained political pressure can reshape global business decisions in line with national economic interests. In my view, more business CEOs will follow Tim's bold move.
In my view, it won't be long before we see serious negotiations begin with China. Trump's war is about to see casualties.Well the goal of tariffs was to bring manufacturing back to America? Cook is evading that. If bringing jobs to America is the goal, why is he exempting so many corporations from the impacts?
Or are tariffs a negotiating tool? But if they're only a tool then that means they are temporary... Or actually is the goal of tariffs to create revenue (off of American consumers) to pay down the debt? Increase government revenue? That would mean tariffs would be permanent and the revenue would be reliant on imports to continue coming in... I have totally lost the messaging on what these tariffs are supposed to be doing??"Apple CEO Tim Cook appeared virtually at a gathering of business executives this week to celebrate President Trump’s first 100 days in office. “I wanna take a moment to recognize President Trump’s focus on domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and we will continue to work with the administration as we invest in these areas,” Cook said during his pre-recorded comments.
In his commentary, Cook touted Apple’s announcement of a $500 billion investment in the United States over the next four years and the company’s long history of working with domestic suppliers.
The White House shared a video of Cook’s comments on YouTube. Here’s the transcript:
“Hi, everyone. I’m sorry I couldn’t be with you today, but I’m glad to have the chance to speak. I’ve always said that Apple could only have been created in the United States. We are a uniquely American company and we care deeply about our impact on this country. That’s why we recently announced plans to spend five hundred billion dollars here over the next four years. We’re expanding our teams and our facilities in several states, including Michigan, Texas, California, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Oregon, North Carolina, and Washington. We’re also establishing a new factory for advanced AI servers in Texas, and we’ll be doubling our US advanced manufacturing fund to help companies expand in America.
We are proud to create millions of jobs here and to make significant investments to catalyze a new era of advanced manufacturing, and we’re proud to support businesses all across the country that help us deliver for our users. All told, we have more than nine thousand suppliers in the US across all fifty states.
We work with American companies to source everything from the components we used for Face ID to the glass used an iPhone. And we expect to source more than nineteen billion chips this year in America from companies across a dozen states. That includes tens of millions of advanced chips being made right now by TSMC in Arizona, where we are the first and largest customer.
I wanna take a moment to recognize President Trump’s focus on domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and we will continue to work with the administration as we invest in these areas. Needless to say, we are excited for the future of American innovation and the incredible opportunities it will create and we are honored to do our part.”
Cook has cozied up to Trump several times since he won reelection in November. In December, the Apple CEO met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. He also donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund and subsequently attended the inauguration in January. Additionally, Cook has closely communicated with the Trump administration regarding the ongoing tariff saga and how it could impact Apple.
During Apple’s fiscal Q2 earnings call on Thursday, Cook repeatedly touted Apple’s investment in the United States economy. “Obviously, we’re very engaged on the tariff discussions,” Cook also said to analysts. “We believe in engagement and will continue to engage.”
If you have a debate on Tim's words, take it to Tim---
"In my view, it won't be long before we see serious negotiations begin with China. "
So is the goal of the tariffs a negotiating tactic?
Or
Are they intended to be a long-term source of revenue for the government?
Or
are they intended to drive jobs back to America?
The administration wants the public to believe three different things, all of which are in conflict.
Trump’s rationales for his tariffs are incoherent and contradict each other..
Bring back manufacturing? Raise revenue? Negotiate with every country in the world? Trump can’t have his cake and eat it too....
Which one is it Trump whispers?Interesting info/opinion on the tariff war and its impact on China:
China Is Losing the Tariff War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENfc_2mAM0E
I tend to agree, China is the exporter nation, it will feel the sting of this much quicker than America and with much more significant impact to its economy.
It is a battle that needed to be fought... the propaganda (shows you how much influence China has today in our media outlets) is making it out to be far worse than it is.What sting? China is a dictatorship without democratic elections... The people of China will suffer as much as Xi wants them to and they will do it quietly. In this country? We cry over the shortage of toilet paper...Walmart and Target reportedly told Trump in a meeting last week that shoppers are likely to see empty shelves and higher prices from next month. They also warned that supply shocks could carry on until Christmas.... The very second that Americans go into a store and cannot find what they want is the second that all hell will break loose in this country. You have to be kidding me.
Anyone who supported this tariff nonsense will be held accountable at The ballot box. Trump has us at the mercy of China. LOL 90 trade deals in 90 days, isn't that what he said? Where are the deals? Seems to be that the rest of the world is talking and solidifying relationships while we are sitting here isolated.
What an idiotic statement for him to make, history shows us that trade deals take on average 18 months...
The coming days are bringing higher prices, empty shelves and disrupted supply chains, this time not because of a pandemic or a war, but self-inflicted by trump.
You folks do realize that the last boats without crippling tariffs from China are arriving....Ken, honestly, this is all the Democrats have left: a broken media that nobody trusts, and fewer people even listen to anymore. Have you seen the ratings lately? Total joke — LOL. All they do is spread fear and negativity. And let's be real, it's easy to stir up a crowd when fear and outrage are their main fuel. It’s getting pretty sad, honestly, downright cringeworthy.
Meanwhile, Trump is delivering, especially on trade negotiations. Hopefully, in the next week or so, we will see some done deals. He’s doing exactly what he promised, and I see things coming up roses. And you can bet that’s going to send the Democrats into a full-blown meltdown, flailing in every direction with their tired Trump-bashing. Their playbook’s empty. The left's crazy train is running out of track — and fast.
This will be fun to watch, after all the crazy we have had to endure--- time to get some popcorn and sit back and enjoy.
China has way more to lose — they’ll cave. Meanwhile, Vietnam and India are celebrating. Trump knew exactly what he was doing; those countries are more than ready to pick up the slack, leaving China as the odd man out. Both nations are already in trade talks, and odds are they’ll agree to low-friction deals, in my view.. As we rebuild our manufacturing base, we won’t see the kind of shortages people fear. Plus, big business is going to love the lower tariffs from doing business with India and Vietnam instead of relying so heavily on China.
Trump is driving a push hard for stronger, more diversified supply chains as we work to rebuild. And for once, both political parties seem to agree on the importance of bringing some manufacturing back home or shifting it to trusted allies. I think we’ll see some smart, strategic deals made with India and Vietnam, and eventually, even a fair and balanced agreement with China. It’s an exciting time to be watching all this unfold, truly history in the making."Meanwhile, Trump is delivering, especially on trade negotiations."
What trade deals has Trump completed? He hasn't delivered on anything. Literally no one is talking to him.
"Plus, big business is going to love the lower tariffs from doing business with India and Vietnam instead of relying so heavily on China.
What? I thought the goal was to bring these jobs here?? Or was the goal to make our country rich off of collecting tariffs (an increase tax to consumer)... I don't know... what is the actual the goal? It would seem that you believe the goal of these tariffs is to negotiate better trade deals? But Trump hasn't really stated that as his goal...
He has actually stated three separate goals, none of which can occur simultaneously. At this point, I don't even think magas understand what the real point of these tariffs are.
Looks like the US Economy is doing just fine.
"Stock market today: S&P 500 wipes out Trump tariff losses, marks longest winning streak in 20 years as trade war cools"
US stocks jumped on Friday, with the S&P 500 notching its longest winning streak since November 2004 as a solid jobs report and possible thawing in US-China trade tensions boosted spirits on Wall Street.
The S&P 500 (^GSPC) added nearly 1.5% to climb above its closing level on April 2, when President Trump announced a sweeping tariff plan on what he called "Liberation Day." The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) moved up 1.4%, or over 500 points, notching a ninth winning day in a row. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) climbed roughly 1.5%."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/sto … 25773.html
"Trump's April tariff revenue topped $17 billion. That dwarfs any haul from his first term.
President Trump's tariffs became very real for importers last month as the government collected more than $17.4 billion in "Customs and Certain Excise Taxes" during April.
That was nearly double March's haul of $9.6 billion, dwarfing the smaller spikes in revenue seen during Trump's first term."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-a … 56118.html
"Strong Jobs Report Alleviates Economic Concerns"
The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the economy added more jobs than expected in April. The strong pace of hiring suggests that the labor market remains resilient despite uncertainties related to tariffs and trade policies.
The strong jobs report, which helped alleviate concerns about the potential for a sustained economic downturn driven by trade tensions, helped boost the outlook for U.S. travel demand. Shares of numerous companies in the travel industry moved higher. United Airlines Holdings (UAL) shares lifted 7.1%, while Delta Air Lines (DAL) shares advanced 6.6%. Shares of cruise operator Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NCLH) were up 6.8%."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/p-500-ga … 40993.htmlBut trump just said the other day that this economy is Biden's .... How does he claim credit for a strong jobs report when he just blamed the GDP on Biden, the two are linked... Can't have it both ways.
“This is Biden’s economy, because we took over on Jan. 20, and I think you have to get us a little bit of time to get moving,” Trump said during remarks at the White House on Wednesday afternoon.Mike--- Absolutely agree, it's great to see some solid signs of stability and growth in the U.S. economy right now. The streak in the S&P 500 is especially encouraging, and the combination of a strong jobs report and easing trade tensions gives some real reasons for optimism. Hey, you know I’m an optimist, and I have faith we’re on the right path. I'm also pleased to see strength in sectors like travel and transportation, Delta, United, and even cruise lines bouncing back shows consumer confidence and pent-up demand. It’s a sign people are ready to spend, move, and live again.
It’s also worth mentioning that small business sentiment is beginning to tick upward. According to the NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, sentiment has been gradually improving since 2023, after hitting multi-year lows in the prior years. Many small business owners have reported a more hopeful outlook on earnings, sales, and hiring, even as concerns about inflation and regulatory pressures still persist. At the same time, key manufacturing indicators, like the ISM Manufacturing PMI, are showing early signs of life. After a prolonged period of contraction in 2023, recent data (as of early 2025) suggests that certain sectors, especially automotive and aerospace, are rebounding, thanks to easing supply chain issues and renewed demand.
Another bright spot is that inflation is cooling without triggering a spike in unemployment-- a difficult balance to strike, especially when you consider how volatile things were in 2022. If the Fed can stay measured and global tensions don’t throw us off course, we might just be on track for that elusive soft landing. All in all, things are looking pretty good, and I’m hopeful we can keep this momentum going.How are tariffs a sign of stability and growth? You realize the consumer is paying that tax? Anything that Trump brought in in tariff revenue is simply because we paid more for those items... And that's a good thing?
A little piece of Mike's article he failed to quote...
"We're going to make a lot of money [from tariffs] and that money's going to be used to reduce taxes," Trump said on April 23. "We're going to get big, big tax breaks."
I thought tariffs were about bringing jobs back? So the scheme is that we will all just pay more for absolutely everything? That's the plan?
And the small business optimism index?
"The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index is currently at 97.4 in March 2025, falling below the 51-year average of 98, indicating a decline in small business sentiment about the economy."
ABA Banking Journal Staff. (2025). NFIB: Small Business Optimism Index fell to 97.4 in March. https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2025/04/ … -in-march/Shar,
The left only has fear mongering left to try and influence voters.
I really had a good laugh when they were saying the stock market crashed and people were losing their 401ks.
Talk about ignorance of the market to extremes. Anybody with any knowledge of the market knew this was said by those who know nothing about the market.
I agree, things are looking good.
I believe the fear mongering of the left will only increase as they have no solutions for anything and can only complain.I really had a good laugh when they were saying the stock market crashed and people were losing their 401ks.
You must not have a 401k or other stock portfolio.... A couple of days market gains do not even begin to wipe away the devastation brought on by trump... The losses are huge and they are very real. Maga owns this.
Trump: “This is Biden’s stock market”
Market rallies for two days: “This is Trump’s stock market”
The kind of logic that only exists in trump world"A couple of days market gains do not even begin to wipe away the devastation brought on by trump... The losses are huge and they are very real."
You REALLY and SERIOUSLY need to take some time and study the stock market. Should you do that you would find ALL of the losses at the beginning of the tariffs have been regained.
I am DEEPLY involved with the stock market. On a daily basis.
So...I know that the left has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the stock market.
The attempt to portray the utter nonsense about the stock market as something to worry about is more than a bit ridiculous. It's laughable.
Try is with someone who doesn't know anything about the stock market.
You'll have better luck.
November: “The market’s surging because I won. Day one—cheap prices, best economy ever.”
February: “Jobs report is great, market’s booming—my agenda is already working!”
March: “The market’s fantastic. Look what I’ve done!”
Early April: Announces tariffs—market tanks. “The stock market doesn’t matter. Not a real indicator.”
MAGA: “Only rich boomers care about the market anyway.”
Trump pauses tariffs: Market rallies. “Boom! My stock market. You’re welcome.”
Late April – May: Trade war escalates, market plunges again, first time of negative GDP growth since 2022. “This is Biden’s stock market.”
Two-day rebound: “It’s mine again. Look how amazing I am.”
You can’t even call it spin anymore...it’s just whiplash gaslighting.The impact of this tariff nonsense is about to hit...
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/19 … 3807532439What an Everest size mountain of bullshit this is.
Apple shifts their iPhone production to India and that is a win for America?
Who did not get the business? America.
Who will still pay more for the iPhone?
Americans.
Apple tried it with lesser models. The flaws made them abandon the idea & bring back production to China.
This time around, Apple is forced to move production of all US bound iPhones to India.
What has changed in a few years (2 years at most) that will make India suitable NOW?
Apple is demonstrating a commitment not only to maintaining the company’s solvency and delivering value to investors but also to strategically bringing more manufacturing back to the U.S. in a sustainable way. By shifting business from China to other countries with lower tariffs, while simultaneously increasing domestic production, Apple is working to balance global and local needs. This process will take time, but under Tim Cook’s leadership, the company is positioning itself well as it navigates the disruptions caused by Trump’s efforts to bring China into fairer trade practices. It's clear Tim Cook is on board with an "America First" approach, in my view. And you should offer a link to your post; it needs to be open for others to determine its content and context.
Apple is not bringing any manufacturing to America.
I thought that was the goal of tariffs? Or is it revenue? Or is it a negotiation tactic? I don't know what is the goal?
https://ig.ft.com/us-iphone/I posted a link to Tim Cook's speech to investures where he laid out his plans. I have nothing more to say on this subject-- I just have no intention of ruminating on this subject any longer.
Just to set the record straight and add clarification to Tim Cook's intentions:
Apple is making significant shifts in its manufacturing strategy, particularly by moving much of its iPhone production to **India**. This transition is largely driven by **tariff concerns** and **geopolitical tensions** between the U.S. and China. By 2026, Apple plans for **most iPhones sold in the U.S.** to be manufactured in India, reducing reliance on Chinese production.
Additionally, Apple is increasing its **U.S. chip sourcing**, with plans to obtain **19 billion chips** from domestic suppliers in 2025. This aligns with Apple's broader strategy to diversify its supply chain while maintaining high-tech manufacturing capabilities.
Sources:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … r-AA1DCfD3
https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/te … t-to-india
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-so … 35800.htmlI've shared everything you've posted throughout this thread, though much of it has become buried in the back-and-forth. Still, thank you for your contribution. If you come across anything new, send me a heads-up. Hard to keep up.
Here's a great link you might want to check out.
I think Tim Cook is making a smart move by shifting business to India and Vietnam. Hopefully, more companies will follow suit. This could pressure China into negotiating fairer tariffs. Let’s be honest, China is Trump’s real target. He's likely to strike more reasonable, reciprocal tariff deals with countries like India and Vietnam. That would help companies like Apple avoid the full brunt of manufacturing changes while U.S. production ramps up. Of course, none of this can happen overnight, but Trump could definitely work toward securing fair trade terms with nations like Japan, India, and Vietnam in the meantime. Hopefully, we will hear some news on some finished deals soon. Otherwise, we may start seeing prices rise.
Apple CEO Tim Cook appeared virtually at a gathering of business executives this week to celebrate President Trump’s first 100 days in office. https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/02/tim-cook … tment-lol/
“I wanna take a moment to recognize President Trump’s focus on domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and we will continue to work with the administration as we invest in these areas.”
"Hi, everyone. I’m sorry I couldn’t be with you today, but I’m glad to have the chance to speak. I’ve always said that Apple could only have been created in the United States. We are a uniquely American company and we care deeply about our impact on this country. That’s why we recently announced plans to spend five hundred billion dollars here over the next four years. We’re expanding our teams and our facilities in several states, including Michigan, Texas, California, Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Oregon, North Carolina, and Washington. We’re also establishing a new factory for advanced AI servers in Texas, and we’ll be doubling our US advanced manufacturing fund to help companies expand in America.
We are proud to create millions of jobs here and to make significant investments to catalyze a new era of advanced manufacturing, and we’re proud to support businesses all across the country that help us deliver for our users. All told, we have more than nine thousand suppliers in the US across all fifty states.
We work with American companies to source everything from the components we used for Face ID to the glass used an iPhone. And we expect to source more than nineteen billion chips this year in America from companies across a dozen states. That includes tens of millions of advanced chips being made right now by TSMC in Arizona, where we are the first and largest customer.
I wanna take a moment to recognize President Trump’s focus on domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and we will continue to work with the administration as we invest in these areas. Needless to say, we are excited for the future of American innovation and the incredible opportunities it will create, and we are honored to do our part.” Tim CookTrump...
"We’re going to make a lot of money [from tariffs] and that money's going to be used to reduce taxes,"
You can't make a lot of money on tariffs unless you have a lot of imports...You are diverting from the subject of the conversation. Not interested in changing up the conversation I am having with PeoplePower. I think there is a lot to unpack regarding Apple and Tim Cook's plans.
What I posted is not exactly the same as Tim Cook's address. It says this:
" Additionally, Apple is increasing its **U.S. chip sourcing**, with plans to obtain **19 billion chips** from domestic suppliers in 2025. This aligns with Apple's broader strategy to diversify its supply chain while maintaining high-tech manufacturing capabilities."
That could be construed to mean increasing manufacturing, but the key words here are obtain and maintaining. These domestic suppliers might already have the capability to produce 19 billion chips. It doesn't say increasing manufacturing. We will have to wait and see how this plays out.Yes, I’m well aware, I closely monitor everything related to Apple. I included Tim’s clip to share his direct, up-to-date insights. Of course, such a shift won’t happen overnight, but it’s exciting to see a major company like Apple making strides toward producing more in the U.S. Building that kind of independence is essential for our future. And honestly, Apple's $500 billion investment is huge, yet it seems some people fail to truly understand the magnitude of that commitment. It’s such a positive step forward, yet I still see negative comments on social media about Apple’s dedication, almost as if there’s a hope that, somehow, Apple will betray the U.S. in the process. It’s a strange perspective, in my view. Me--- I am saying yay! for Apple's commitment.
I’m also very pleased with the Ukraine rare mineral deal, for obvious reasons. It’s a major step forward in securing the resources we’ll need to manufacture key technologies here at home, including semiconductors, electric vehicle components, and advanced electronics. This move strengthens our supply chain and reduces reliance on adversarial nations. It’s likely a big reason why Tim Cook seemed so pleased last week: he sees the groundwork being laid for a more resilient, U.S.-based tech manufacturing ecosystem.
I believe that, in the end, Trump will leave behind a stronger America when his time in office comes to a close. This is an exciting chapter, in my view. I tend to focus less on the noise at the edges and more on the positive developments that are unfolding."Apple's $500 billion investment is huge, yet it seems some people fail to truly understand the magnitude of that commitment.
We've understood that commitment from them for decades now...Apple has consistently made significant investments in the U.S. economy over multiple presidential administrations, demonstrating a long-term commitment...good on them."Apple's $500 billion investment is huge, yet it seems some people fail to truly understand the magnitude of that commitment." Willow
Once again, you’ve pulled a single sentence out of context—a habit the media seems to have adopted more and more in recent years—and run with it. You completely skipped over the full picture of what I was saying. Honestly, I’m getting tired of dealing with that approach.
Here’s the full thought I was trying to convey:
“And honestly, Apple’s $500 billion investment is huge, yet it seems some people fail to truly understand the magnitude of that commitment. It’s such a positive step forward, yet I still see negative comments on social media about Apple’s dedication—almost as if there’s a hope that, somehow, Apple will betray the U.S. in the process. It’s a strange perspective, in my view. Me? I’m saying yay! to Apple’s commitment.”
See how the words before and after create a complete, nuanced thought?
You may very well understand the commitment—but let’s be clear: you can’t speak for everyone, especially when it comes to what people are saying on social media. I was simply sharing my personal takeaway based on what I’ve seen online.
You could have just rephrased your statement to read--- I understand that commitment from them for decades now...Apple has consistently made significant investments in the U.S. economy over multiple presidential administrations, demonstrating a long-term commitment...good on them.
It appears you were speaking for a group, a segment of our population. Do you feel you can do that?
Here’s the bottom line: context matters. One sentence rarely tells the full story, especially when it’s pulled from a paragraph.
A balanced reply... which is the truth of the matter... yes there will be more investments, especially regarding chip manufacturing, in American Made.
And yes, business will leave China and find somewhere else to go other than America.
Increased investment in production here in America.
And
Increased movement of business out of China to other places like India.It’s understandable that China would seek to diversify its trade partners, but replacing the United States as a primary export destination is no simple task. In 2023 alone, the U.S. imported $427 billion worth of Chinese goods, over 12% of China’s total exports. Losing access to such a massive, high-spending consumer market would leave a significant economic gap that few countries could fill. China has also long benefited from a highly favorable trade imbalance with the U.S., posting a $279 billion trade surplus in 2023. Deals this one-sided are unlikely to be replicated elsewhere, as other nations tend to demand more balanced terms. Realistically, China most likely realizes it will need to come back to the table, especially with its economy faltering and reports of unrest among its people. President Trump has consistently said he is not looking to punish China, but rather to secure a fair trade deal, something that benefits both nations. Given current pressures, I believe we’ll see movement soon. Ken, in the end, I think trade deals are going to start rolling in, and I truly believe that Trump has already laid the groundwork for major investments that will strengthen American jobs and build a more resilient economy.
China is dealing with its own problems... the world is not great and wonderful for China outside of its bickering with America...
Iran being targeted, its main port being bombed, is causing serious issues for China... 90% of everything Iran exports goes to China... and almost as much is imported to Iran from China.
North Korea's new alliance with Russia, and the inter-dependency between those two nations that is growing, is a problem for China.
China will be hurt more economically because of this trade war... America will just shift where it gets its cheaply produced products from... while re-developing the ability to make all high end (critical) products here in America.
If this battle is not fought now... China will definitely become the de-facto power globally as well as within our own politics and propaganda outlets.
China has wormed its way into politicians long holding power in Congress, most media outlets, corporations, the WTO, the WHO, etc. ... and now it is time to work it out of our system, or else, we become another beholden nation enslaved to its whims because we were to weak as a society to stand up for our own interests.You make several strong points, China has absolutely gained a disturbing amount of influence in global institutions and even within some corners of our political and corporate systems. The long game they’ve been playing is no secret anymore. And you're right: if we don’t start standing up for our interests now, we risk slipping further into dependency. That said, while America can and should shift its supply chains and rebuild critical industries, that process will take time, investment, and a serious cultural shift in how we value domestic production. China will feel pain from the trade war, hopefully, ours is less and short-term. Still, the bigger picture matters; this isn’t just about cheap goods, it’s about long-term sovereignty and keeping foreign influence in check. North Korea is a useful reminder too: they have nothing to offer but military support, which is exactly why they’re backing Russia. China, with its economic power, is the real challenge, but one that needs to be addressed now, not later. Trump is hell bent on chipping away at China.
Regarding Iran, Iran exports large quantities to China, but will Trump apply pressure on Iran to the point where they’re forced to reduce exports due to increased domestic needs?
President Trump reimposed broad sanctions on Iran as part of his renewed "maximum pressure" campaign, not just threatening action but implementing direct measures. In February, his administration targeted Iranian oil networks by sanctioning firms like Sepehr Energy, which was linked to Iran's military leadership. By April, the U.S. also sanctioned individuals and companies in Iran, the UAE, and China for helping procure components for Iran’s drone and missile programs. Then on May 1, Trump announced secondary sanctions against any nation importing Iranian oil or petrochemical products, aimed especially at China, Iran’s biggest oil customer. It is being reported that these moves were designed to pressure Iran into returning to nuclear negotiations and to curb its regional military activities.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/0 … a-00322292
Trump seems to be adding pressure on China wherever he can."Iran being targeted, its main port being bombed, is causing serious issues for China... 90% of everything Iran exports goes to China.."
Various data sources report that approximately 30% of Iran’s total exports are sent to China...
Iran (IRN) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners - OEC World. (2025). https://oec.world/en/profile/country/irn
Apple has done this once in its history already though? Moved some of its manufacturing to India and after poor quality outcomes, moved back to China. LOL why would this time be any different
Maga's are masters at avoidance of trumps really weird and particularly egregious acts...no one has been able to answer a very simple question... What is the end goal of these tariffs? Jobs or revenue? We've heard both simultaneously.... We all know that these two things cannot exist at once.
Surely there is an obtainable, clear goal, right?yes, the goal is corruption and control.
As Trump can easily make tariff exceptions for some companies under certain conditions....those companies have to pay with his crypto coin that is not traceable.
Not sure why maga followers can't define the goals of these tariffs...
Trump's tariffs purportedly aim to serve multiple goals...protecting domestic industry, raising government revenue, and leveraging trade negotiations...which inherently conflict with each other.Trump...
"We’re going to make a lot of money [from tariffs] and that money's going to be used to reduce taxes,"
You can't make a lot of money on tariffs unless you have a lot of imports...
How does this work? His goals and rhetoric are at odds with each other.Warren Buffett this weekend.. his simplicity says it best...
“We should be looking to trade with the rest of the world, and we should do what we do best and they should do what they do best . Trade should not be a weapon"
He is making a clear reference to the economic principle of "comparative advantage"
Explained Simply:
Each country should specialize in producing goods and services it can make most efficiently,and trade for the rest. This makes everyone better off.
Example:
India is great at producing software and providing services.
Brazil is great at growing coffee.
If India tries to grow coffee, it might be less efficient. If Brazil tries to develop software at scale, it might lag behind.
So:
* India exports software
* Brazil exports coffee.
* Both countries trade and benefit.
Analogy:
Think of two friends:
* Alice is great at cooking.
* Bob is great at fixing things.
If they both try to do everything, they waste time and do a poorer job.
But if Alice cooks and Bob fixes, and they help each other... both eat well and live in a well-maintained house.
Buffett’s Philosophy:
*Global prosperity comes from collaboration.
* Trade should not be used as a weapon or political tool
* Countries trying to "win" trade wars by isolating others end up hurting global growth...It's a great philosophy. All it needs is countries that believe it and follow it. That do not take the stance of "I do better at making nick nacks so you should buy all that from me. But I do not want your products, whatever it is that you do best at, because it takes jobs from my own people.
Pretty rare, for nearly all countries care more about their own citizenry than they do about ours, and are quite happy to sell Americans all kinds of things...but don't want to buy what Americans make for then they can't make it themselves.As I have said... China is not in a position to win this war... they are the EXPORTER to America... where else can they sell 40% of their exports?
I don't think Mexico or Canada is going to pick up that slack.
A situation made worse for China because of the war on Iran... 90% of energy resources exported by Iran goes to China... well, that is being disrupted substantially."they are the EXPORTER to America... where else can they sell 40% of their exports?
This has been fact checked previously.. but here we are again:
In 2024, China exported approximately 14.7% of its total exports to the United States. This figure has been decreasing in recent years, reaching its lowest level in a decade...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/160 … %20decade.
Do you know anything about Buffet? I really must laugh at this point. You pick up a blurb and run with it. His history is long, and he never hides his views on anything, literally.
Warren Buffett has long been a strong proponent of globalization and open trade, a position that aligns closely with the global scale of his investments and the reach of Berkshire Hathaway, the company he leads. Many of Berkshire’s most important holdings, such as Apple and Coca-Cola, generate significant portions of their revenue from international markets. Apple, for instance, earns more than half of its income from outside the United States, while Coca-Cola operates in more than 200 countries. Buffett’s commitment to global trade isn’t just philosophical; it’s woven into the business model of the companies he backs. His investments reflect a firm belief in the concept of comparative advantage, the idea that countries benefit most when they focus on producing what they do best and trade for the rest.
At the same time, Buffett has not always turned a blind eye to the risks of imbalanced trade. He has criticized America’s long-standing trade deficits, warning in a 2003 article that the country was “selling itself out” by relying too heavily on imports. Yet even in that critique, he did not call for punitive tariffs or protectionist policies. Instead, he proposed mechanisms like “import certificates” to bring trade into better balance, ideas designed to encourage fair trade, not isolate the U.S. from global commerce. In this way, Buffett’s views overlap in principle with Donald Trump’s call for “fair trade,” though the two men differ significantly in how they propose achieving it. While Trump emphasizes tariffs and bilateral deals to protect U.S. industries and close trade gaps, Buffett focuses on long-term cooperation and mutual prosperity through open markets.
Buffett’s lifelong embrace of globalization has played a major role in making him one of the richest individuals in the world. He sees global trade not as a threat but as a pathway to peace, stability, and shared economic growth. While critics often bristle at Trump’s aggressive trade rhetoric, it’s worth noting that both he and Buffett ultimately share a desire for fair, mutually beneficial trade; only their methods differ.
Keep in mind, unfair trade made him one of the wealthiest men in the world. As they have done for the majority of the most wealthy.
Globalization has significantly enriched the wealthiest individuals and multinational corporations by expanding their access to resources, markets, and investment opportunities. One of the biggest drivers of wealth creation has been the ability to shift manufacturing and services to countries with cheaper labor and materials, dramatically reducing costs and increasing profit margins. These savings flowed directly to top executives, shareholders, and company founders. At the same time, globalization opened vast new consumer markets, allowing companies like Amazon, Apple, and Tesla to sell products across the world and scale their businesses far beyond what domestic demand could support. Wealthy investors also benefited from globally integrated financial markets, which offered high-return opportunities and diversified portfolios.
Additionally, globalization rewarded ownership of intellectual property and branding, assets typically controlled by the richest individuals and companies. Tech billionaires, for instance, amassed enormous fortunes by licensing software and digital services that could be easily scaled worldwide. The global nature of commerce also made it easier for the wealthy to exploit tax loopholes and offshore havens, minimizing their tax burdens in ways not available to average workers. Tariffs, often negotiated as part of complex trade deals, also played a role in globalization and the accumulation of wealth at the top. In some cases, tariffs protected key domestic industries while allowing powerful multinational firms to dominate international markets by leveraging government influence. In other instances, uneven or poorly enforced tariffs created environments where large corporations could navigate and manipulate trade frameworks better than smaller competitors, entrenching their market dominance and deepening their profits.
As international business became central to national economies, the ultra-wealthy gained disproportionate political influence, often helping shape trade and tax policies that further entrenched their economic power. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty globally, especially in developing nations, it has also contributed to widening inequality in wealthier countries, where income growth for the middle and working classes has lagged far behind the capital gains enjoyed by the elite.
Globalists often favor the status quo when it comes to tariffs because they benefit from unfair trade practices that line their pockets. I’ve always been upfront about being a capitalist, capitalism rewards those who are productive and can create wealth. But I’ve also come to realize that these unfair tariffs primarily benefit the wealthy, while everyday Americans don't see the same gains. Fair trade, on the other hand, has the potential to benefit a broader group of Americans, ensuring that more people share in the economic prosperity.He is making a case for comparative advantage. Something that has been completely ignored. It's a very valid point. I'm guessing you don't subscribe to the principle of comparative advantage?
Tariffs and Globalization worked hand and hand to drain us of trillions over the years. The Guys that Biden hoped to tax as Trump would say "bigly"--- guys like Buffet, Tim, Jeff, Elon, and so many more that flourished due to unfair trade.
I think a problem has occurred due to some not understanding what Trump has proposed, and shared regarding tariffs. You bring up comparative advantage.
Trump’s trade ideologies relate to the concept of comparative advantage in selective and strategic ways. He often acknowledges that the United States should focus more on industries where it has natural strengths, such as technology, energy, and advanced manufacturing. In doing so, he aligns with the idea that countries benefit from specializing in what they do best.
Trump frequently argues that other nations, particularly China, gain trade advantages through manipulation—such as currency devaluation, low labor standards, and heavy subsidies—which he views as distortions of true comparative advantage. To counter this, he uses tariffs and trade barriers not just to protect American industries but to correct what he sees as an uneven playing field. Additionally, Trump prioritizes national security and economic independence, especially in critical sectors like steel, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, even if domestic production in those areas is less efficient. This runs contrary to the principle of comparative advantage, but reflects his broader view that efficiency should not come at the cost of vulnerability. Overall, Trump’s trade philosophy selectively incorporates comparative advantage when it benefits U.S. interests, but rejects it when he believes it undermines fairness, leverage, or national strength.
He also suggests that some industries, such as steel, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, are too important to rely on foreign production, regardless of efficiency, because they are tied to national security and economic independence. In this way, Trump doesn’t necessarily reject the theory of comparative advantage, but he challenges whether free trade always allows the U.S. to trade from a position of strength. His trade policies reflect a belief that protecting certain industries and correcting perceived imbalances is sometimes worth more than the efficiency gains that come from global specialization.
I’m always surprised by the reaction to renegotiating tariffs. Politicians and everyday citizens alike have been voicing concerns about unfair trade for decades, and with good reason. I think the response might have been different if a Democrat or a different Republican had taken these steps years ago. It appears Trump will take many kicking and screaming into fair trade. A Tariff war can cause turmoil. This is most likely why no one took it on. Many promised to address it, but never did much to tackle unfair trade."Trump’s trade ideologies relate to the concept of comparative advantage in selective and strategic ways. He often acknowledges that the United States should focus more on industries where it has natural strengths, such as technology, energy, and advanced manufacturing.
But he's offered exemptions?! exempting these sectors selectively from tariffs while imposing tariffs on other sectors creates unbalanced trade conditions that contradict the mutual gains expected from comparative advantage-based trade... This country hasn't been "drained of trillions". We've benefited from lower cost items that can be produced more efficiently elsewhere.
The principle of comparative advantage explains that countries specialize in producing goods where they have lower opportunity costs relative to others, enabling more efficient production through specialization and mutually beneficial trade. Trade deficits and surpluses naturally arise from these differences in specialization and efficiency, not necessarily from unfair trade barriers.
Trump's tariffs do not encompass the principles of comparative advantage at all.
As of yet, Maga has not even been able to identify what Trump's ultimate goal of these tariffs are?
Trump...
"We’re going to make a lot of money [from tariffs] and that money's going to be used to reduce taxes,"
You can't make a lot of money on tariffs unless you have a lot of imports...and Americans paying that tariff tax.
So how does this work? His goals and rhetoric are at odds with each other.
Really seems like the goal is to just make Americans pay more for absolutely everything... I think that's crystal clear in the language lately that we should as a country become accustomed to less things and having to pay more for those items.It has become very evident that you do not understand the concept of tariffs, that the US has long had a serious imbalance, and you clearly don't understand what strategies Trump is using to fight a complicated trade war. I feel I am wasting too much energy on the subject. As I said, this is a very complicated subject. Too complicated for a chat.
Hey Shar, perhaps a different voice, a different approach!?
Not sure where this guy hangs his hat, but he does a good job of laying it all out:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16D675 … tid=oFDknkWhat is Trump's goal of his tariff program? Is it to reshore jobs? Is it a negotiation tactic? Or is it to be considered a permanent revenue stream? He has stated all three and all three are contradictory.
Also, trade imbalances are not inherently bad.What do you view as a long term "good" from a large, long term (negative) imbalance?
Not just "good" today, but for years or decades to come?I just want to know what the current goal actually is...oddly, no one seems to be able to answer that question.
I've come to the conclusion that Trump and MAGA live in an alternate reality. His goal is to reduce the national debt, the budget deficit, and remove income taxes.
He thinks by shutting off imports from China and the other countries that are on his rip-off list, he can increase manufacturing here and create jobs and income.
He also thinks by laying off federal workers, it will reduce the payroll and create more income. In addition, he thinks by deporting all immigrant manual labor, it will create more jobs and thus create more income.
Thus he will achieve his goal of reducing the national debt and budget deficit and we will no longer have to pay income taxes ever again.
It's all very simple in his brain. He is reducing expenses and increasing income, but in reality, I don't think he has a clue as to what he is doing. The scary part is he actual believes what he is doing will work.But you can't increase revenue and bring back jobs at the same time? To increase revenue in order to remove income tax would mean that tariffs would have to be permanent. Which would mean relying on a steady stream of imports.
"Ford puts a number on its tariff hit and halts guidance
‘Substantial’ risks lead carmaker to pull outlook for the year amid a $1.5 billion hit from tariffs"
Yikes. It's about to get real. When a legacy automaker like Ford can’t see 12 months ahead, the storm isn’t coming..it’s already here
This whole trade war will go down as the biggest act of political suicide in history...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ford- … e-a171d656
So we're at, at least a dozen companies in the S&P100 saying they have no forward guidance due to tariffs.Trump changes his tune on the economy
President Trump is changing his tune on the economy, suggesting that Americans should buy less and will probably pay more and bear the brunt of an uncertain economic landscape as his wide-ranging tariff policy takes effect.
Trump and his economic team have for weeks said the tariffs would result in only short-term pain and that the tumult in the stock market would eventually level out.
But the White House’s messaging has evolved from Trump on the campaign trail promising to lower prices and make America “wealthy” again to Trump suggesting that the U.S. needs a cultural shift on consumer spending while accepting that his tariff plan will raise prices.
Trump was asked Sunday by NBC’s Kristen Welker if he would acknowledge that his tariff plan will result in higher prices.
At first, the president suggested tariffs will “make us rich” — similar to sentiments he’s expressed when it comes to touting his economic policy. But in the next turn, he suggested that American children, for example, do not need as many toys and that Americans do not need to spend as much money on “junk we don’t need.”
“I’m just saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls. They can have three. They don’t need to have 250 pencils. They can have five,” Trump said, acknowledging that the prices of such items could also go up.
That’s in stark contrast with candidate Trump, who spent much of 2024 railing against inflation under former President Biden and promising to lower costs if elected. In an ABC News interview last week, Trump said his economic policy is what voters signed up for.
Trump has in recent weeks acknowledged “a little disturbance” in the economy that emerged when his tariff plan was rolled out. When he was campaigning, Trump spoke frequently of tariffs on China, the European Union, Canada and Mexico, but his policy ultimately imposed tariffs on nearly every country in the world, sending the U.S. and foreign stock and bond markets into chaos.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the center-right American Action Forum, called Trump’s messaging “pivoting” on an unpopular policy.
“This feels tone-deaf to me. This is, ‘You’re too materialistic. You don’t need as many dollars as you think.’ And he’s a very strange messenger for that message, and I don’t think it’s going to sell,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Marc Short, who was a top aide to former Vice President Mike Pence during Trump’s first administration, warned that Trump risks alienating people if he keeps talking about dolls, calling it a “damaging message” that “suggests a little bit of an elitism perspective.”
High tariffs on China and other key trading partners will have the most impact on Americans who rely on less-expensive goods, not those who can buy 30 toys, argued Daniel Hornung, National Economic Council deputy director in the Biden administration.
“Saying low- and middle-income people should just buy less or buy more expensive stuff misses an important point,” Hornung said. “We have large swaths of the country that don’t make enough money to afford to buy expensive things, and it’s very important to them whether or not something costs 5 percent or 10 percent or 20 percent or 100 percent more.”
Using tariffs as a negotiation tool while Trump is also asking Americans to get used to buying less goods are opposing ideas, argued Kathryn Anne Edwards, a labor economist and policy consultant.
“They’re in complete conflict with each other because if it’s just a negotiating ploy, you don’t try to bring domestic production home at all. You’re just trying to get a better price for your consumers here,” she said. “If it’s actually about domestic production, negotiation’s off the table because I don’t care what you offer me, this is about jobs at home.”
Also contributing to economic anxieties are some projections from Wall Street that see a potential recession on the horizon.
When NBC’s Welker asked Trump whether he was OK with the prospect of a recession, at least in the short term, he replied: “Look, yeah. Everything’s OK. What we are — I said this is a transition period.”
Edwards said that the possibility of the U.S. heading toward a recession could actually prevent companies from opening manufacturing plants in the U.S., going against one of Trump’s own intentions.
“What would prevent a business right now from saying, ‘Hey, if there’s a tariff, I’m going to start manufacturing something at home.’… Well, they can’t do it because if there’s a recession, it’s not an easy time to start a high-scale manufacturing business, especially if orders are down, stores are closing and consumption is down,” she said.
The policies are also losing some support from the public. Almost 6 in 10 U.S. adults said Trump’s policies are making the economy worse..."
So what IS the goal of the tariff terror?
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … s-economy/Trump’s latest move proves his manufacturing Golden Age is just fools’ gold
Contrary to popular belief, American exporters have enjoyed a manufacturing renaissance. Since 1994, American exports have nearly tripled, even after you adjust for inflation.
Oh but please tell me more about how the world is taking advantage of us? How we're "losing" trillions?
American goods exported exceeded $2 trillion last year. America’s aerospace industry now exports nearly $100 billion a year. The American automotive sector exports more than $160 billion annually, nearly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms since 1994. American soybean farmers supply livestock around the globe with feed. Each of these export-intensive sectors stands to lose jobs due to these tariffs.
First, don’t expect an overall gain in American manufacturing jobs. Certainly, individual companies may benefit. A tariff on steel might save a few jobs at a specific steel mill. But the cost for every American manufacturer using this higher-priced domestic steel will also increase.
Numerous American companies have already begun laying off American workers in response to the tariffs, including at five Stellantis plants. Currently, up to 30% of North American auto production may be temporarily halted due to the tariff uncertainty. These headlines will become routine if the trade war continues.
Second, the limited tariff-created manufacturing jobs will not be better paid jobs. Good-paying jobs are contingent on productivity. Higher tariffs lower labor productivity as less efficient businesses are protected from competition.
Thanks largely to the innovation and efficiencies from free trade, our jobs market has diversified away from a concentration of jobs in a lower-paying, physically demanding industry. The burgeoning sectors have supplied tens of millions of Americans with opportunities in safer professions.
Productivity overall of workers doubled in just the past 40 years. It’s not just investors or managers who benefit as resources yield more output. Workers share in this abundance of affordable, available and diverse goods.
Our so-called "trade deficit" has largely enabled this boom in newer, more productive jobs. The surplus dollars overseas generated by us importing more than we export flow back to the United States often in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI) in businesses here — exploding more than 500% compared to thirty years ago to more than $330 billion last year. If the president succeeds at eliminating this trade deficit, workers employed in these new jobs will suffer as foreign direct dries up.
Economic distortion caused by tariffs will shift jobs and resources to industries in which we lack a comparative economic advantage. As government policies deploy resources to less efficient businesses, more individuals will be forced to take these less desirable jobs.
The overall decline in business output translates not only to less profit; it yields less take-home pay and consumption for middle-class families. Workers will be harmed by this shift to lower-paying jobs.
We now export far more of these services than we import. For this reason, the typical American family enjoys an annual income $26,000 greater than just one generation ago. A record percentage of young adults are participating in our stronger economy.
Tariffs are a roadblock to prosperity, not a highway.
We’ve been here before: Look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. It was meant to protect American industry, but it prolonged the Great Depression by choking global trade. The layoffs, price hikes, financial carnage and cratering approval ratings caused by this historic tax increase may cajole the president into soon relenting.
If not, the promised manufacturing jobs will come at the expense of jobs elsewhere and be far fewer in number than promised. We will produce less, consume less and earn less. The Golden Age will deliver nothing but fools’ gold: Politically caused scarcity in an age of abundance."
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps- … fools-goldAre you sure you are not equating "exports" with "manufacturing"? One need not be a manufacturer, with large factories and employment, to export. Oil and food come immediately to mind.
An article from some years ago comes to mind, where a man did a major remodel of his home, determined to buy American for everything. He was a complete failure, as America did not make the things he needed. Kitchen appliances from toasters to refrigerators, household items from central air conditioning to a new vacuum cleaner; nothing was made in America. Even personal items, from hair brushes to the clothes on our backs are made elsewhere. We simply do NOT manufacture things at nearly the pace and variety we used to.
But you are absolutely correct that we will never have the employment numbers we used to have in manufacturing. Robotics and automation have seen to that, and the genie will never return to the bottle.
Trump: 'We're going to become so rich, you're not going to know where to spend all that money'
AND
Trump: "Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls. So maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally.”.Trump: "Everyone says, 'When, when, when are you gonna sign deals?' We don't have to sign deals ... they have to sign deals with us. We don't care about their market ... they'll either say, 'Great,' and they'll start shopping, or they'll say, 'Not good.' That's okay. You don't have to shop."
Adds, “Not trading with China — we’re losing nothing.”
Are you freaking kidding me.
So we have a shift in goal now? I think his statement shows his hand doesn't it? No one is coming to make any deals are they?
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1919791248388268265
Bessent: “We’ll get trade deals this week.”
Trump, hours later: “We don’t have to sign deals"
What?And this is incredible, Bessent as questioned earlier by Mark Pocan and couldn’t answer the most basic question: who actually pays the tariffs? Absolutely stammering and fumbling...
https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/1919775484440666304I can't resist piping in. That clip brought an evening chuckle.
He really made himself look bad. Your choice of "incredible" covers it. But, it was the thought that came next that brought the chuckle.
I don't remember the names, but surely you remember the senior-level female VIP who, in a televised Congressional hearing, couldn't define a woman? That was the thought.
Wait. That's not 'whataboutism, or defense of Besset or criticism of the woman. It's the 'SMH' chuckle about politicians' low opinion of the public.
Time after time we see it. In times like your clip, they rub our faces in it. Half the time we swallow it, and half the time we spit it out. Then we argue about our choice of action.
GA
Can anyone answer, what did the Ukraine get out of the minerals deal with Trump? Did Trump guarantee the Ukraine's territorial integrity in return? I don't recall Trump making that guarantee, how is that going to stop Putin and his offensive?
Britain and India clinched a long-coveted free trade pact on Tuesday after tariff turmoil sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump forced the two sides to hasten efforts to increase their trade in whisky, cars and food....
The agreement between India and Britain is expected to boost bilateral trade between the world's fifth and sixth largest economies by 25.5 billion pounds ($34.13 billion) a year from 2040, Britain said.
Meanwhile in our country...ZERO deals.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/whats- … 025-05-06/On May 6, 2025, the United Kingdom and India finalized a landmark Free Trade Agreement (FTA) after THREE YEARS of negotiations. This deal significantly reduces tariffs on a range of goods and is expected to deepen economic ties between the two countries. Notably, India has agreed to lower tariffs on 90% of British exports, including reducing the whisky tariff from 150% to 40% over the next decade and cutting car tariffs from over 100% to 10%. In return, 99% of Indian exports, such as textiles, food products, and jewelry, will enter the UK duty-free. Economically, the agreement is projected to boost bilateral trade by £25.5 billion (approximately $34 billion) annually by 2040 and raise the UK’s GDP by £4.8 billion each year in the long term.
While the FTA does not explicitly target China, it could still have indirect consequences for the Chinese economy. As India and the UK strengthen their trade relationship, both countries may become less reliant on Chinese imports and exports, gradually shifting global trade patterns. Additionally, increased trade between India and the UK may intensify competition for Chinese exporters, particularly in industries like textiles and automotive parts, where India is becoming increasingly competitive. The agreement also reflects a broader trend of nations diversifying their trade partnerships in response to geopolitical tensions, which could lessen China’s global economic influence over time. Moreover, as companies seek to mitigate risks exposed by recent global supply chain disruptions, India may emerge as a more attractive manufacturing and sourcing alternative to China. Though the FTA is not designed to counter China, its long-term effects may contribute to reducing China’s dominance in certain sectors of the global economy.
So, could this work out well for the US in the ongoing Tariff war? Maybe
Did anyone catch the treasury secretary Bessent today being questioned by oversight?
"We have not engaged in trade negotiations with China as of yet"
Well gee.. what does that mean?
Another lie from Trump.
China has been dreaming of humiliating the US for many years. The MAGA amateurs have come at just the right time.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 8666465476I’ve been seeing a lot of chatter about the tariff war over the past month, and what I’m picking up is that tariffs are still pretty misunderstood, mostly because the topic is complex. The media doesn’t help either; they’re all over the negative aspects of a tariff war, but no one’s really talking about the other side of the coin: why fair trade actually matters and why now is the time to negotiate a more level playing field.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the whole idea of “free trade,” especially when it comes to China, and honestly, it’s never been very free or fair for the U.S. For decades, we’ve operated under this belief that open trade would benefit everyone, but the numbers just don’t back that up. While we’ve been letting Chinese goods pour into our markets, our own businesses have been stuck jumping through hoops to even compete abroad. It’s no wonder our trade deficit with China hit $295 billion in 2024.
Here’s the kicker: the U.S. was charging a 20.8% average tariff on Chinese imports, but China was slapping our goods with tariffs between 67% and 84%. How is that anything close to fair? That kind of imbalance crushes American manufacturers and hands Chinese companies a major advantage. If we flipped the script and made tariffs reciprocal, say, both countries charging the same 20.8%,we wouldn’t see prices rise here at all. But our exporters would finally get a fair shot, and that revenue could go right back into American infrastructure, jobs, and industry.
Even better, fair trade could spark a manufacturing comeback here at home. Imagine more companies choosing to build in the U.S. just to avoid foreign tariffs. Picture a German carmaker opening a plant in Tennessee instead of China, or a tech company building phones in Texas rather than Vietnam. Leveling the playing field makes America a more attractive place to do business, which means more jobs, better wages, and a stronger economy.
Fair trade doesn’t mean isolation; it means standing on equal ground. If we just match the treatment we’re already giving, we’re not hurting anyone, we’re simply making trade work for us again. It’s really just about looking at the stats and understanding how much we stand to gain if we hold our ground. If Trump can scale this kind of fair trade policy, we might actually see real growth and opportunity back on our shores."but China was slapping our goods with tariffs between 67% and 84%."
' According to WTO data, in 2023 (the latest available data), China’s simple average Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) applied tariff rate was 7.5 percent, with a trade-weighted average of 3 percent. In comparison, the US maintained a lower MFN applied rate of 3.3 percent and a trade-weighted average of 2.2 percent. Breaking it down further, China’s MFN applied tariff rate in 2023 averaged 14 percent for agricultural products and 6.4 percent for non-agricultural products, while the US imposed lower rates of 5 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively."
Historical average tariffs imposed by China on US goods have stayed below the 30% range.
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/tru … 20percent.
US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart | PIIE. https://www.piie.com/research/piie-char … date-chart
Let's examine this "full and comprehensive" trade "deal" with the UK:
-The 10% tariffs on goods from the UK into the US remains (so no relief for taxpayers)
-It DOES include lower tariff quotas for UK steel and car exports. Note the use of the word "quotas", so essentially it changes nothing because the quotas have never been met.
-It puts an end to the THREATENED BUT NOT IMPLEMENTED 25% tariffs Trump threatened on steel and car imports
-It's so "full and comprehensive" that it doesn't cover pharmaceuticals
So, the "full and comprehensive" trade agreement with the UK is missing all sorts of points and resulted in *checks notes* ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the US.
Meaning that our trade war with the UK was settled for ZERO, and Trump is just proclaiming victory even though there's been no change. The only thing this "deal" provided was pending but not yet implemented tariff relief for US citizens on British goods.
Also worth noting that the effective tariff rate in the UK for US goods was 0.5%....
More theater with no substance. There's no trade deficit with the UK. He basically is announcing renewing the same deal that was already in existence.
Very little change since UK had a surplus, basically the US REDUCES steel and auto tariffs on UK.
So far UK has no concessions, unclear if they keep the 10% tariff.
Literal nothing-burger.Trump on US port traffic slowing down:
“It’s a good thing-not a bad thing.” “That means we lose less money.”
Makes sense?
Truck drivers don't think so...There are no ships from China sailing to the West coast on 5/10/2025. When will they start laying off dock workers and truckers in California, Oregon, and Washington?
This situation is concerning. I’m hoping that negotiations go smoothly, and that we don’t end up feeling the impact of shortages and rising costs. I’m holding on to the belief that a fair deal can be reached. Both leaders are fully aware of the severe consequences if this isn’t resolved quickly. They’re both in politically vulnerable positions. While I’m not one to make predictions, I have a sense that a fair deal will come together quickly to avoid too much fallout. I’m giving it a couple of weeks.
From what I have read, it is now a forgone conclusion there will disruptions because the supply chain now officially broken. The question is for how long will this go on.
Yes, I’ve read several reports suggesting that disruptions are likely. However, I get the sense that a fair deal will come together quickly to prevent too much fallout. I’m giving it a couple of weeks, but I do expect, and agree, we’ll see some consequences.
Shar,
I think it's important for people to realize China needs a deal with the United States very badly.
If empty ships are arriving from China, that means the factories in China aren't producing. Factories not producing means many Chinese people being unemployed.
This is very dangerous for the Chinese government.
A man from China told me that we in the United States don't understand the trouble that comes from having over a billion people. When large segments are unemployed, that will lead to chaos.
China and the United States will come to an agreement, because they have to come to an agreement. China desperately needs the American markets to sell their goods and the United States needs China's manufacturing.In 2024, the United States accounted for approximately 14.7% of China's total exports. This figure has decreased from a high of over 19% in the past, with a recent decrease of 5 percentage points from 19% to 14%....looks like they are increasingly finding other trading partners.
And in terms of Xi? Well I'll defer to Trump's words...
"Well, he’s a brilliant guy. He controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. I mean, he’s a brilliant guy.."
Xi doesn't have to worry about politics or reelection like Republicans do here. Politicians will face severe blowback the minute folks begin to feel financial discomfort... We have a voice here in America. The Chinese do not.
Trump doesn’t have the cards. He never had them and he never will against China.What makes you think China "needs" a deal with the US? Granted, they would like one because it will make life a little bit easier after Trump's scorched earth polices. Bur "Need"? I don't think so,
On the other hand, Trump "Needs" a deal if he has any hope of retaining Congress in 2026.
I hope you are right, but am pessimistic.
trump’s gone from a 104% tariff on China to a 125% tariff to a 145% tariff and now he says an 80% tariff “sounds about right.” He’s just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. This is what happens when you put a man who went bankrupt six times back in charge.
And now? He punts to Bessent, who’s also a hot mess.
So I'm guessing he's looking for the exit ramp at this point? A way to back out of this mess he created... Before empty shelves in sky high prices hit home.trump’s gone from a 104% tariff on China to a 125% tariff to a 145% tariff and now he says an 80% tariff “sounds about right.”
Two days ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlica8F0YPw
He's desperate.I am afraid "that ship has sailed" so to speak, lol. We are just weeks away from stores and manufacturers using up the last of their stored inventory and shelves start to empty.
Many are saying the supply chain disruption is worse than the pandemic. We all remember what that caused, sky-high inflation.
Trump started a trade war, lost it, and now calls a 90-day pause a “victory.” It’s like lighting your kitchen on fire and asking for applause because you found the fire extinguisher....
Isn't that called the Art of Deal - Trump style? LOL
This is getting confusing.
I thought Trump said other countries would be paying the tariffs? I thought Trump said we would be setting up an External Revenue Service to collect tariff money hand over fist from other countries? Did something change or is he just full of sh*t every time words come out of his mouth....
The man loves tariffs, says they're the most beautiful thing in the world yet he is bullying a private corporation now? He needs to own what he's done.
He doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing. Now he is going to send letters to all those countries that were on his hit list for ripping us off. Those letters can't be tracked and there is no proof they will be sent. This is his way of quietly trying to back out of the tariffs for all those countries.
He is a fraud and most of his administration are also frauds. They don't know what they are doing as well. He has 13 billionaires in his administration. Trump and their goal is to funnel money to the top for them and their oligarch cronies.Yep, I think It follows that the US can't really persuade anyone it's worth investing in a serious trade agreement while this guy's in charge.
And that might explain why "90 deals in 90 days" has become "no deals, but we'll send you a letter.""Yep, I think It follows that the US can't really persuade anyone it's worth investing in a serious trade agreement while this guy's in charge." Willow
You may not have considered the entire picture.
Actually, the recent wave of investments secured—particularly due to Trump’s direct engagement with global business leaders and nation-state investors—positions the U.S. for one of the strongest export booms in our history. These deals aren’t just symbolic; they involve real capital flowing into infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, energy production, and tech innovation. With this kind of domestic expansion, we’ll have more to offer global markets than ever before. It’s not about persuading others with words—it’s about producing value here at home that the world wants to buy. That’s what leadership focused on economic results looks like.
These investments come from highly reputable business leaders, nation leaders, and sovereign wealth funds managing multibillion-dollar assets, entities known for due diligence and honoring their commitments. The scale of these agreements highlights Donald Trump’s effectiveness in attracting substantial capital back into the U.S., with positive potential for job creation and economic growth.
Key Investment Deals That were secured last week
Saudi Arabia
$600 billion in investments covering defense, energy, and infrastructure.
$142 billion defense contract signed.
$1.2 trillion in broader economic and trade agreements.
Agreements with Saudi government and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Qatar
Over $243 billion in commercial, defense, and aviation sectors.
$96 billion Boeing aircraft purchase order.
NVIDIA
Commitment: Up to $500 billion over four years
Focus: Manufacturing AI supercomputers in the U.S.
Details: Plans to produce chips domestically for the first time
In February 2025, Apple announced a $500 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and training over the next four years. This commitment was made during a White House event where Apple CEO Tim Cook met with President Donald Trump. While much of this spending was already planned, the announcement underscored Apple's confidence in the U.S. economy and its commitment to expanding operations within the country.
In January 2025, Oracle, along with OpenAI and SoftBank, announced a joint venture called Stargate, aiming to invest up to $500 billion in U.S.-based artificial intelligence infrastructure over the next four years. This initiative was highlighted during a White House event with President Trump, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. The project includes plans to build AI data centers across the U.S., with the first site under construction in
IBM
Commitment: $150 billion over five years
Focus: Growth and manufacturing operations in the U.S.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)
Commitment: $100 billion
Focus: Chip manufacturing in the U.S.
Details: Expansion of existing facilities in Arizona
Johnson & Johnson
Commitment: $55 billion over four years
Focus: Manufacturing, research and development, and technology
Roche
Commitment: $50 billion
Focus: Manufacturing and research and development in the U.S.
Details: Expected to create over 1,000 full-time jobs and more than 12,000 jobs including construction
Bristol Myers Squibb
Commitment: $40 billion over five years
Focus: Research, development, technology, and U.S.-based manufacturing operations
Eli Lilly and Company
Commitment: $27 billion
Focus: Doubling domestic manufacturing capacity
United Arab Emirates-based ADQ and U.S.-based Energy Capital Partners
Commitment: $25 billion
Novartis
Commitment: $23 billion
Focus: Building or expanding ten manufacturing facilities across the U.S., creating 4,000 new jobs
Hyundai
Commitment: $21 billion
Focus: U.S.-based investment, including $5.8 billion for a new steel plant in Louisiana, creating nearly 1,500 jobs
Details: Secured an equity investment and agreement from Posco Holdings, South Korea’s top steel maker
United Arab Emirates-based DAMAC Properties
Commitment: $20 billion
Focus: New U.S.-based data centers
France-based CMA CGM
Commitment: $20 billion
Focus: U.S. shipping and logistics, creating 10,000 new jobs
Sanofi
Commitment: At least $20 billion over five years
Focus: Manufacturing and research and development
Venture Global LNG
Commitment: $18 billion
Focus: Liquefied natural gas facility in Louisiana
Gilead Sciences
Commitment: $11 billion
Focus: U.S.-based manufacturing investment
AbbVie
Commitment: $10 billion over ten years
Focus: Volume growth and adding four new manufacturing plants to its network
Thermo Fisher Scientific
Commitment: $2 billion over four years
Focus: Enhancing and expanding U.S. manufacturing operations and strengthening innovation efforts
Merck & Co.
Commitment: $9 billion
Focus: U.S.-based manufacturing, including a new $1 billion North
Carolina manufacturing facility and a new state-of-the-art biologics manufacturing plant in Delaware, creating at least 500 new jobs
Clarios
Commitment: $6 billion
Focus: Expanding domestic manufacturing operations
Stellantis
Commitment: $5 billion
Focus: U.S. manufacturing network, including reopening its Belvidere, Illinois, manufacturing plant
Amazon
Commitment: $4 billion
Focus: Investing in small towns across America, creating more than 100,000 new jobs
Yes, the investment commitments I have mentioned have been made during President Trump's second term, which began in January 2025. These investments are part of a broader initiative by the Trump administration to encourage both domestic and foreign investments in the United States.
I can safely say we have never in our history had a president who has delivered this scale of investment into our Nation—spanning technology, infrastructure, energy, and manufacturing—while simultaneously restoring global confidence in America’s economic leadership and negotiating directly with world leaders, top CEOs, and sovereign wealth funds to bring capital, jobs, and innovation back to U.S. soil.I'm hesitant to attribute investment decisions solely to Trump's policies or actions. Investment trends, such as the growth of AI and semiconductor industries, were already in motion before Trump and were likely to have continued regardless. To be quite honest he doesn't appear to do too much. I believe he initially promised to cut these trade deals himself and now the administration is just sending letters..
Economic conditions, technological advancements, and global market dynamics are more likely influencing investment decisions than anything Trump has said or done at this point.
Also, There is a big difference between investment announcements and actual realized investments. I'm sure we will all be keeping score on what comes to fruition and what doesn't. There were certainly promises of investment / manufacturing facilities during his first term that were not realized."Also, There is a big difference between investment announcements and actual realized investments" Willow
Are you suggesting that the nation’s leaders and prominent businessmen would publicly announce investment plans and outright lie about them? You do realize that such statements can influence the stock market. If those announcements were knowingly false or misleading, they could potentially face serious legal consequences, including charges like securities fraud, wire fraud, and making false statements to federal regulators such as the SEC. Misleading investors in this way isn't just unethical; it's a federal crime.
To say "anything Trump has said or done at this point" doesn't matter, ignores how market psychology and political anticipation work. Investors do respond to Trump’s messaging, especially since he has a strong track record of enacting bold, market-moving policies. One only needs to consider the market swings of the last two months. And what we will most likely see in the market this coming week, due to the cash Trump accumulated last week on his visit to the Middle East.
While economic conditions, technological advancements, and global market trends absolutely influence investment decisions, it’s misleading to suggest that they matter more than the influence of someone like Trump, especially now that he’s president again. The investment funds alone that Trump brought into the U.S. during his first term were enormous. His policies on tax cuts, deregulation, and energy independence directly spurred trillions in capital flows and corporate reinvestment. That wasn’t just market dynamics, it was the result of deliberate, pro-growth policies.
Now, with Trump back in office, those same levers of influence are in play again. Global investors are already repositioning based on expectations of new trade deals, tariff shifts, and regulatory rollbacks. Sure, economic trends and tech breakthroughs shape the market, and we’ll likely see that reflected as I said early as this week, but let’s not pretend leadership doesn’t matter. Trump’s policies had a proven impact on investment decisions then, and they will again now."Are you suggesting that the nation’s leaders and prominent businessmen would publicly announce investment plans and outright lie about them?
I'm suggesting that statements don't always come to fruition...
I can give one example but there are many more...
During Trump's first term, he famously promised that Foxconn, a major Taiwanese electronics manufacturer, would build a massive $10 billion flat-screen television factory in Wisconsin, creating 13,000 manufacturing jobs. Trump hailed the project as the "eighth wonder of the world" during the 2018 groundbreaking ceremony.
However, the project did not come to fruition as promised...
Another example just for good measure? Remember Carrier?
During Trump’s campaign and presidency, he claimed to have saved manufacturing jobs at the Carrier factory by cutting a deal with the company in exchange for $7 million in tax breaks. The deal was touted as a major success in preserving American manufacturing jobs.
However, despite the initial promise to keep the plant open and retain jobs, Carrier eventually fired over 500 factory workers within the first year of Trump’s first term... Yes these things were publicly announced yet fell throughYour negativity is something you wear like a favorite jacket, but I prefer to deal in positivity and facts rooted in the here and now. As for water under the bridge? I don't waste time trying to swim upstream in yesterday’s current. Let’s focus on what’s real, what’s now, and what moves us forward.
I don't quite understand why Willowarbor's response with facts deserved an insult in return.
Well if maintaining positivity requires ignoring the facts, I can't get on board. Yes, it is a negative reality that not all announced deals come to fruition. Just keeping it real
That may be why Conservatives keep complaining honest journalists put such a negative light on Trump - there is so little to report that is positive that it just "feels" that way.
Trump got well over a trillion committed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia...
Two countries the Biden Administration had forced away from America with their insults and arrogance...
But the optics are terrible... how can we virtue signal to the rest of the world that we hate ourselves, our "western" heritage, our "oppressor" nation status... if Trump is getting along with the likes of Saudi Arabia and getting them to invest trillions into the country!?!?Ken, Exactly right. Trump did secure well over a trillion dollars in investment commitments from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, something no president before him managed on that scale. He treated these nations like strategic partners instead of lecturing them, and the result was massive economic cooperation, arms deals, and long-term commitments that strengthened both our economy and our influence abroad.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration came in with arrogance and moral posturing, immediately straining those relationships. From harsh rhetoric over human rights to trying to “recalibrate” ties with Saudi Arabia, Biden pushed away two of our most critical allies in the region, and for what? Optics? Moral theater?
What’s especially hypocritical is how the liberal elite constantly preach globalization, inclusion, and cultural understanding, yet they pick and choose who’s allowed in the “global club.” They’re quick to alienate countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar because they don’t fit neatly into the progressive narrative of what democracy should look like. They ignore the fact that these nations aren’t just 250 years old like the U.S., but are rooted in thousands of years of history, culture, religion, and tradition. Rather than respect that, our government often shuns them for not discarding their ancient ways in favor of Western democratic models. That’s not diplomacy, that’s cultural arrogance.
Trump’s ability to negotiate and build rapport with powerful nations others fear to engage with, and get results, is exactly the kind of leadership we need. It wasn’t about liking Saudi Arabia; it was about putting America first, strengthening our alliances, and bringing investment back home. That’s real diplomacy.You're absolutely right to highlight the significance of the investments Trump secured, over a trillion dollars committed from Qatar and Saudi Arabia is no small achievement. That kind of economic diplomacy doesn't just happen by accident. It takes strategic engagement, respect for mutual interests, and a willingness to look beyond ideological virtue-signaling to what actually benefits the American people.
Unlike the Biden administration, which too often alienated traditional allies with arrogance and moral posturing, Trump approached these nations with something rare in modern diplomacy: humility and respect. He showed pride in America without looking down on others. He acknowledged that while the U.S. is just over 250 years old, many of our global partners have been shaped by thousands of years of history. He respected their values, their traditions, and their systems of governance, not because he agreed with them on everything, but because he understood diplomacy means meeting others where they are.
Trump extended an olive branch to nations that still value olive branches, handshakes, and mutual respect. That’s not weakness, that’s leadership. And in a world teetering on conflict, his work toward peace and cooperation should be seen as positive, brave, and, frankly, kind. The optics aren’t terrible because Trump got along with Saudi Arabia, the optics are terrible for those who cannot recognize the difference between hollow virtue-signaling and real progress.
I can understand the view you shared, it is popular, and well pushed by the media. I can't agree with the unessary negarivity. I have always made the choice to stay outside the lines of what many think, and think for myself.
Remember, he used to say trade "deficits" were bad and were ripping us off. Now he is say trade "surpluses" are doing the same thing and those nations (England) need to punished as well
The man does one thing, and only one thing very well, "delude his followers" such that they aren't aware they have been snookered.You're oversimplifying the issue and ignoring the context of how trade policy actually works. It’s not contradictory to criticize both trade deficits and certain trade surpluses if the terms of trade are unfair in either case.
Trump didn’t say every trade deficit was inherently bad, he said that persistent, massive deficits with certain nations (like China) were the result of poor U.S. policy, manipulation, or one-sided deals. That’s not delusion; that’s a fair critique, and many economists, even skeptics, acknowledge that some trade partners have played the system (currency manipulation, state subsidies, intellectual property theft).
Now, with the U.K. or others, the issue isn’t just that they have a surplus with the U.S., but why and how. If a country is benefiting disproportionately due to tariffs, regulatory barriers, or our own trade policies being too soft, then reevaluating that isn’t hypocrisy—it’s consistency: putting American interests first, regardless of who’s on the other side of the table.
And let’s not pretend this “deluding his followers” line is anything more than condescension disguised as insight. You don’t get 70+ million votes by tricking half the country. Many people support Trump not because they’re fooled, but because they finally see someone fighting for their industries, their jobs, and their sovereignty, even if it ruffles feathers abroad.
You may not like his rhetoric. You may find his messaging inconsistent. But don’t mistake strategic shifts for intellectual dishonesty, and don’t assume people are stupid just because they don’t buy into your view of globalism and trade.If the agreement with the U.K. was supposed to demonstrate that Trump is a master dealmaker who is wielding tariffs to bend the global economy toward Americans' best interest, it falls well short.
The agreement maintains the 10 percent universal tariff that Trump imposed on nearly all imports to the United States... this is a tariff hike on American consumers, rather than a reduction.
The point of comparison that isn't being made: the average tariff rate on imports from the U.K. before Trump took office. In 2023, the most recent year for which full data are available, the average U.S. tariff on British goods was 3.3 percent....
Are the rest of the "deals" going to raise prices on Americans in a similar fashion?I have no more really to say about the UK deal. I have had a look at it, I find it fair, and both sides have walked away with some positives. What you don't seem to be understanding --- Trump is looking for fair deals. Fair deals never were to shaft one side. So, I well exspect all the deals will be fair.
It is a positive that Americans previously paid a tariff of 3.3% on British goods and are now faced with 10%? I will respectfully disagree on that one. But yes, the wealthy are walking away with lower tariffs on Aston Martin's...
It's a fair deal in your estimation that Americans used to pay a 3% tariff on British goods and now they pay a 10% tariff?
While the U.S. did raise tariffs on certain U.K. goods, it's crucial to recognize that these adjustments were part of a broader strategy to address long-standing trade imbalances and to encourage fairer trade practices. The U.K.'s reduction of its own tariffs on U.S. goods, particularly in sectors where the U.S. faced significant barriers, reflects a move towards more equitable trade relations.
The 2025 trade deal between the U.S. and the U.K. involved reciprocal adjustments to tariffs, aiming to balance trade relations and address previous disparities. While some U.K. goods now face higher tariffs entering the U.S., American exporters have gained improved access to the U.K. market, highlighting the deal's mutual concessions and benefits. We will derive more income with the new tariffs on certain goods from the UK. I have no idea if prices will rise on certain goods. We don't import any large quantities of goods from the UK. The exchange of goods looks very fair and more balanced."While the U.S. did raise tariffs on certain U.K. goods, it's crucial to recognize that these adjustments were part of a broader strategy to address long-standing trade imbalances and to encourage fairer trade practices
But there wasn't an imbalance, at least on our side. We had a surplus with the UK... And now? The goods Americans used to pay a 3% tariff on, they will now pay 10%.
That's called fair"?
You know I'm a very simple person, this just doesn't really square with me...
"According to a chart used by Trump, the new trade deal with the United Kingdom will bring in $6 billion in “external revenue,” a term he and his administration use to describe payments collected by U.S. Customs from American importers. The new 10% rate for nearly all goods, which was announced last month for countries all over the world, is three times higher than the 3.4% average rate Americans have paid for goods from Britain and Northern Ireland."
Sort of seems like they won and we lost. Anyway you look at it, consumers in this country will pay more for British goods.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tr … bba8e78dc0
Didn't his "deal" only cover Ethanol and Beef on our side? I am probably misremembering.
U.K. has agreed to open its market to American beef, which is really a nothing burger because they don't like the amount of growth hormone we use as well as our farming practices. When they do import beef, it comes from Ireland and. New Zealand.
And yes, a potential expansion for our ethanol in the UK market.
Correction, Trump raised tariffs on ALL UK goods, not just "certain" ones - that was the across-the-board 10% tariff.
On top of that, Trump raised tariffs on "certain" UK goods.
I am glad you are able to see a "broader strategy" in all that chaos. Assuming he ever had one beyond "tariff everybody", he threw that out the window after his first few reversals he tweeted out.
While the UK did lower tariffs on Beef and Ethanol from the 2024 baseline, its practical effect is problematic. In 2024, we exported only 300 metric tons of beef to the UK. The UK importers or consumer might benefit from the lower, but the US exporter probably will not. WHY? The UK doesn't want our beef.
The story is a bit different with Ethanol. We already ship 244 million gallons to the UK. The tariff-free limit is 370 million gallons. So, assuming the UK wants to buy more from the US , our exporters can sell 156 million more gallons to the UK tariff free. The only thing that might prevent that is if the competition starts bankrupting British companies.
To be clear - all goods imported from the UK will face a minimum of a 10% - not just some goods.
Do you realize that to "become more balanced", the US will have to REDUCE its exports to the UK? Alternatively, the UK will have to buy MORE from the US or some combination of the two.
What will be interesting to see if Trump's actions will drive what was a trade SURPLUS with the UK into a Trade Deficit.
It is not I who does not understand trade policy, it is Trump. His trade policy is - and he has said something like this out loud and many times - "trade deficits bad - they must be eliminated".
Here are the caveats that need to go with your generalized statement - "It’s not contradictory to criticize both trade deficits and certain trade surpluses if the terms of trade are unfair in either case."
A trade deficit can be harmful if it's caused by things like:
Currency manipulation,
Unfair subsidies abroad,
Domestic deindustrialization due to lax trade enforcement.
But a trade surplus can also be a problem if:
It's sustained through exploitative labor practices,
It relies on environmentally destructive exports,
It strains diplomatic relations (e.g., flooding allies’ markets with cheap goods),
It benefits a narrow group (e.g., multinational firms) while harming domestic consumers or values.Regarding - "Trump didn’t say every trade deficit was inherently bad, "
In an April 2, 2025, speech announcing sweeping tariffs, Trump declared that chronic trade deficits are "a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life."
Then he followed with this false narrative" "He emphasized that these deficits have led to the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing base and undermined critical supply chains, rendering the defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries. " - They have done no such thing
He also said in April 2025; "I will not reverse tariffs on other nations unless the trade deficits that the United States runs with China, the European Union, and other countries disappear," - SEEMS pretty clear to me that he thinks trade deficits are inherently bad and must be eliminated.You are misrepresenting Trump's position by cherry-picking quotes and ignoring the broader context of his trade philosophy.
President Trump’s comment that chronic trade deficits are "a national emergency that threatens our security and our very way of life" does not imply he believes all trade deficits are inherently bad. There is a clear distinction between chronic and strategic. He repeatedly criticized specific, lopsided trade relationships, primarily with China and other nations where there are issues of currency manipulation, IP theft, forced tech transfers, and unreciprocated market access.
Your dismissal of the impact of trade deficits on U.S. manufacturing and the defense-industrial base is not only overly confident, it’s economically ignorant. The U.S. has, in fact, seen key segments of manufacturing outsourced due to incentives created by unfair trade policies. This includes sectors crucial to national security, like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and rare earth processing. Even bipartisan national security reports have warned that relying on adversaries for critical components is strategically dangerous.
When Trump said he won’t reverse tariffs unless trade deficits disappear, he’s clearly using leverage, not making a blanket ideological claim. Anyone who’s followed his negotiation style knows that he often stakes out maximalist positions to create space for a better deal. It’s a tactic, not dogma. And there’s a difference between demanding fairer trade and declaring all deficits evil. For instance, he has never targeted deficits with allies like Canada or the U.K. in the same way.
In my view, your assertion that Trump’s narrative is "false" shows a bias, not an argument. The fact is, America’s manufacturing job losses correlate strongly with ballooning trade imbalances, especially post-China WTO accession in 2001. Economists across the spectrum (see Autor, Dorn, Hanson’s China Shock) have documented the real, community-level harm from these deficits.
So no, it doesn’t "seem clear" that Trump thinks all trade deficits are inherently bad. What’s clear is that you’ve reduced a nuanced economic position to a simplistic caricature, ignoring both intent and evidence.
You’re throwing around accusations like “fraud” and “oligarch” with zero evidence and expecting that to pass for an argument. Let’s unpack the emotion and deal with the substance.
The idea that Trump “doesn’t have a clue” is tired and lazy. You don’t build a multi-billion-dollar real estate empire, win the presidency against both political parties and the media, and shift the global trade conversation without at least some idea of what you're doing. You may not like how he does it, but pretending he’s clueless while he dominates headlines, reshapes alliances, and forces foreign leaders to the table is just wishful thinking.
Regarding the letters to foreign governments: it’s not unusual for heads of state to engage in diplomacy through confidential or private communications. Do you think every move FDR or Reagan made was publicly disclosed the second it happened? Negotiation is not theater. It requires backchannels and leverage, not performative outrage on CNN.
Tariffs are a tactic, not a religion. If he’s adjusting them or backing off in certain cases, that’s not betrayal; that’s called negotiating leverage. You don’t start a trade fight to die on that hill. You use tariffs to bring people to the table and get a better deal. It’s funny how critics screamed “he’s starting a trade war” when tariffs went up, but now scream “he’s backing down” when negotiations move forward. You can’t have it both ways.
And the “13 billionaires in his administration” line? So what? Having successful people in leadership roles is somehow corrupt now? You’d rather fill the White House with bureaucrats who’ve never signed a paycheck in their life? Maybe that’s part of the problem: too many career politicians with no skin in the game and no understanding of how wealth is created. Bringing in people who understand business, finance, and deal-making is exactly how you fix a bloated, unaccountable government.
You can disagree with Trump’s policies, that’s fair. But calling him and his entire team “frauds” without substance is just an emotional outburst, not a legitimate critique. If you want to debate policy, fine. But if all you have is name-calling and conspiracy theories about “oligarch cronies,” don’t expect serious people to take you seriously."You’d rather fill the White House with bureaucrats who’ve never signed a paycheck in their life?"
Those are the only two choices? How about some regular people who actually understand "the groceries" instead of musing at the word because they've actually shopped for them?
A cabinet that thanks we won't complain if we miss a social security check or tells us we need less, our kids fewer dolls and pencils and that affordable goods aren't the American dream are wildly out of touch with the majority of Americans.I think Trump’s victories both in 2016 and again in 2024, reveal something many still haven’t fully recognized. In 2016, he won because Americans were tired of career politicians and wanted someone who promised real change. He made it clear from the beginning that what he would bring wouldn’t resemble the politics of the past, and it didn’t. Then, for a time, the public seemed to retreat, longing for the familiar, the so-called “status quo.” But somewhere along the way, many people had a wake-up call. They realized Trump had it right all along. He had drawn back the curtain, and when it started closing again, voters pushed it back open and chose Trump once more in 2024.
What’s remarkable is that Trump didn’t change who he was to win again. You still get exactly what you see, no polished political mask, no playing both sides. He offered change, not by changing himself, but by sticking to what he knows and believes. As for his cabinet, it’s one of the most cohesive I’ve ever seen. These are people from all walks of life, united not by polish or political gamesmanship, but by shared goals and an unapologetic determination to achieve them. They operate like a massive, focused machine: promises made, promises kept.
And about this tired threat of losing Social Security checks, that’s been a fear tactic for decades. For once, I can honestly say I feel hope that it might finally be addressed and prevented. Blaming Trump for long-standing, deeply rooted problems like Social Security’s collapse is, frankly, ridiculous. In my opinion, anyone who buys into that line of thinking is either very young or just not thinking critically. Social Security has been in trouble for decades, and no one, Democrat or Republican, has made any serious move to fix it. If and when it collapses, there will be plenty of blame to go around, but Trump won’t be anywhere near the top of that list.
You asked for it you got it. Here are Fox News Personalities that hold key positions in Trump’s administration and their backgrounds.
• Jeanine Pirro – Former host of Justice with Judge Jeanine and co-host of The Five. She was appointed U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Pirro previously served as a judge and district attorney in New York.
• Pete Hegseth – Former host of Fox & Friends Weekend. He was appointed Secretary of Defense. Hegseth is a combat veteran and has been a vocal critic of "wokeness" in the military.
• Dan Bongino – Former Fox News contributor and host. He was appointed Deputy Director of the FBI. Bongino previously served as a Secret Service agent and police officer.
• Sean Duffy – Former co-host of The Bottom Line on Fox Business. He was appointed Secretary of Transportation. Duffy is a former congressman and reality TV star.
• Tulsi Gabbard – Former Fox News contributor. She was appointed Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard is a former congresswoman and Army officer.
• Kimberly Guilfoyle – Former co-host of The Five. She was appointed Ambassador to Greece. Guilfoyle previously worked as a prosecutor.
• Mike Huckabee – Former Fox News host. He was appointed Ambassador to Israel. Huckabee is a former governor of Arkansas.
• Keith Kellogg – Former Fox News contributor. He was appointed Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Kellogg is a retired three-star general.
Trump has recruited over 20 former Fox News employees for his administration, strengthening his ties with the network.
Donald Trump has assembled the wealthiest presidential administration in modern history, with **13 billionaires** taking on key government roles. Here are some of the most notable figures and their backgrounds:
- **Elon Musk** – Co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk, the world's richest man, has a net worth exceeding **$400 billion** and has been a major financial backer of Trump's campaign.
- **Howard Lutnick** – Commerce Secretary. Lutnick, a billionaire financier, is expected to play a key role in trade negotiations.
- **Linda McMahon** – Education Secretary. McMahon, a former wrestling executive, has been tapped to lead the education department.
- **Scott Bessent** – Treasury Secretary. Bessent, a hedge fund manager, will oversee financial policy.
- **Warren Stephens** – Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Stephens, a billionaire financier, has been appointed to represent the U.S. in the UK.
- **Leandro Rizzuto Jr.** – Ambassador to the Organization of American States. Rizzuto Jr., heir to the Conair fortune, will serve in this diplomatic role.
- **Charles Kushner** – Ambassador to France. Kushner, a real estate mogul, has been named ambassador to France.
- **Tom Barrack** – Ambassador to Turkey. Barrack, a longtime Trump ally and investor, will represent the U.S. in Turkey.
- **Jared Isaacman** – Head of the Space Policy Council. Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur, is known for his work in private space exploration.
- **Tilman Fertitta** – Ambassador to Italy. Fertitta, a billionaire businessman, owns the NBA’s Houston Rockets and multiple hospitality ventures.
- **Doug Burgum** – Interior Secretary. Burgum, a billionaire tech entrepreneur and former governor, will oversee federal land management.
- **Kelly Loeffler** – Head of the Small Business Administration. Loeffler, a billionaire investor, previously served as a U.S. senator.
- **Stephen Feinberg** – Defense Policy Advisor. Feinberg, a billionaire private equity executive, has been tapped to advise on military strategy.
The combined net worth of Trump's wealthiest officials exceeds **$460 billion**, making this administration the richest in history.
Billionaires have influenced various policies across different sectors. Here are some notable examples:
• Tax Policy – Billionaires often advocate for lower corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. The Koch brothers, for instance, have funded campaigns promoting tax cuts that benefit wealthy individuals and businesses.
• Environmental Regulations – Some billionaires push for deregulation in industries like oil and gas. Others, like Elon Musk, influence policies supporting renewable energy and electric vehicles.
• Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals – Billionaire-backed lobbying efforts have shaped drug pricing policies and healthcare regulations. For example, major pharmaceutical investors have influenced laws regarding drug patents and pricing.
• Media & Free Speech – Billionaires who own media outlets can shape public discourse and influence political narratives. Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has played a significant role in shaping conservative policies.
• Political Office – Some billionaires directly enter politics to shape policies. A study found that 11% of the world’s billionaires have held or sought political office, often in autocratic regimes where wealth protection is a key motive.
Here are background details on the individuals in Trump's cabinet who have faced criticism for their qualifications:
• Matt Gaetz {Taken out early) – Former congressman nominated for Attorney General. Gaetz has no experience leading a federal agency and has vowed to purge the Justice Department of officials who oppose Trump. He previously served as a U.S. representative for Florida's 1st congressional district and was involved in multiple controversies during his tenure.
• Pete Hegseth – Former Fox News host appointed as Secretary of Defense. Hegseth has no military leadership experience but has pushed for ideological changes in the Pentagon. His tenure has been marked by controversies, including halting Ukraine aid flights and leaking military plans, using Signal..
• Tulsi Gabbard – Former congresswoman appointed as Director of National Intelligence. Critics argue that Gabbard lacks intelligence community experience and has expressed controversial foreign policy views. She previously served as a U.S. representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district and has a military background.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Anti-vaccine activist nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. Kennedy has promoted conspiracy theories about vaccines and public health. He previously ran as an independent candidate in the 2024 presidential election before endorsing Trump.
• Linda McMahon – Former wrestling executive appointed as Education Secretary. McMahon has no background in education policy. She previously served as the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and was involved in WWE business operations.
• Kristi Noem – South Dakota governor appointed as Homeland Security Secretary. Noem has limited experience in national security matters. She previously served as the governor of South Dakota and gained national attention for her conservative positions.
Several billionaires in Donald Trump's administration have played a significant role in shaping his policies. Here are some of the most influential figures:
- **Elon Musk** – As chair of the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk has pushed for aggressive federal spending cuts, benefiting industries tied to his businesses.
- **Scott Bessent** – Trump's Treasury Secretary has opposed raising the federal minimum wage, favoring policies that benefit wealthy investors.
- **Linda McMahon** – As Education Secretary, McMahon has advocated for reducing federal oversight in education, aligning with conservative calls to limit government intervention.
- **Howard Lutnick** – As Commerce Secretary, Lutnick has influenced trade policies that favor Wall Street and deregulation.
- **Warren Stephens** – As Ambassador to the UK, Stephens has been involved in shaping international trade agreements that benefit financial institutions.
Trump's administration has been described as **"government by plutocrat"**, with billionaires playing a central role in policy decisions.
It is this type of anti-business, unAmerican "leadership" that MAGA voted for -[/b[ and apparently love.
Trump warns America’s businesses: Eat my tariffs, or pay the price
More words of sick wisdom from Trump, who is a felon and sexual predator.
“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump said. “Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, “EAT THE TARIFFS,” and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. " - Yes, he says, do as I do and LIE.
A week later, on May 6, Trump threatened a 100% tariff on Mattel after the Barbie and Hot Wheels maker said it would have to raise prices. ... “We’ll put a 100% tariff on his toys, and he won’t sell one toy in the United States, and that’s their biggest market,” Trump said. “I wouldn’t wanna have him as an executive too long.” - How many of you Trump supporters are PROUD of that childish response?
How can you support such an irrational, vindictive, unintelligent man, let alone a felon and sexual predator and still call yourselves critical thinkers? Think about it, what does that support say about you and your values.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/business … -consumersWho is in favor of killing small business? I know, I know, Trump and MAGA are.
Excerpt from a subscribers only analysis
"The erratic nature of President Donald Trump’s trade policies and the severity of newly imposed tariffs have wreaked havoc on small businesses in the US, causing costs to quickly skyrocket, unsettling longstanding supply chains, swiftly stifling growth and expansion plans — and threatening to kill American-bred businesses.
A 30% tariff for Chinese imports “is still a step up, and that’s not the only tariff we’re looking at. We’re looking at tariffs around the globe,” Elizabeth Renter, senior economist at NerdWallet, told CNN in an interview. “That relief was necessary, but let’s not kid ourselves. The impact of this trade war is going to be significant, and I think it’s going to hit smaller businesses potentially the worst.”
To understand the plight of small businesses one needs to only look at the largest corporation of them all.
The chief executive officer of Walmart late last week said that tariffs were “too high” for the world’s largest retailer to absorb, and that it would raise prices in the coming weeks.
“Walmart is the best equipped to handle increased costs; they have probably some of the most complex supply chains, and they’re going to multiple suppliers for all of their products,” Renter said. “If some place like Walmart is signaling that they’re going to be increasing prices, we know that the stress on smaller corporations and smaller businesses is going to be significant.”Donald Trump Plays Walmart CEO
WSJ is on point.
Which American politician said the following?
Item one: “Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain. Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected. Between Walmart and China they should . . . EAT THE TARIFFS, and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”
Item two: “After causing catastrophic inflation, Comrade Kamala announced that she wants to institute socialist price controls . . . Her plan is very dangerous because it may sound good politically . . . This is Communist; this is Marxist; this is fascist.”
If you guessed that both are statements by Donald Trump, you have broken the code on the bizarro world of the President’s second-term economic policies. Last year he blasted Kamala Harris’s proposal for price controls on groceries. But now he is attacking Walmart for warning that it will have to raises prices in the wake of Mr. Trump’s tariffs.
Mr. Trump’s flip-flop on price controls is a rebuttal of his own previous tariff claims. For months he’s said that foreign producers pay the full cost of tariffs. But now he’s admitting that Walmart, an American retailer, will have to eat some of the costs or pass them on to Americans.
Despite his business background, Mr. Trump doesn’t know much about retail. Walmart’s net profit margin is below 3%, so it doesn’t have much room to absorb the higher costs caused by tariffs. Retail competition is intense, and Walmart’s longtime comparative advantage has been lower prices.
Mr. President is telling a company how to run its business, along with a vague, implicit threat of retribution. Marxist? How would Mr. Trump react if Congress told him how much his family could charge for a Mar-a-Lago fee?
Mr. Trump is trying to duck the political fallout for his misguided tariff policy by blaming everyone else. Americans are too smart to fall for it.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trum … f-439cb183In my view, Trump is a narcissist master con-artist.. When their con has been revealed, the first thing they do is attack the revealers and then play the victim.
Trump is attacking the big box stores and having them eat their price increases. At the same time he is playing victim to all the countries where he has raised tariffs and asking them to make a deal with him.
Why would any country want to make a deal with him? He simply does not understand how tariffs work. According to CBS, he has made two deals and has 150 more to go.You are not alone - dozens of mental health experts are on record as saying he is Dangerously narcissistic and unfit for the job.
BTW, I have been meaning to ask. Why isn't anybody investigating the COVER-UP of Trump almost dying of Covid during his first term. People need to know and those around him kept it hidden.
And THOSE weren't actual "deals", they were frameworks. In fact, Trump has made No Deals (nor did he end the Russian war in Ukraine like he promised and promised and promised he would do.
Here we go again...
Trump, clearly big mad that the European Union signed a deal for the minerals in Greenland, is now threatening 50% tariffs on EU goods...
I thought everyone was getting a letter?
And notice the language that he says he is "recommending" the tariff... To who? The person who's actually in charge?So Trump was just boarding Air Force One in New Jersey and took some questions from reporters. In terms of tariffs, he said that he does not see this country making t-shirts and tennis shoes. So this is new, right?
This I can agree with him 100% BUT why do we have tariffs on these types of items coming into the country then?
They're really just is no cohesive plan or vision is there?Another round of market manipulation? Trump agrees to extend EU tariff deadline to JULY 9
Always giving in on tariffs at the deadline while getting no deals in return. Concepts of deals though. Lots of stuff happening behind the scenes. Any day now. Golden Age. Yada. Yada. YadaIt's obvious that the world is moving away from America. Where are the trade deals? Where are the peace deals? The world is calling America's bluff. The only deals being made are those for Trump properties, golf courses and hotels... Go figure.
Since the majority of Americans no longer agree with Trump, I prefer to think of it as the is calling Trump's bluff.
"The only deals being made are those for Trump properties, golf courses and hotels"
And, the new projects - Vietnam & Qatar, along with the Super Trump Coin (STRUMP). I wonder what is happening with Trump Tower in Moscow?
Trump Tower Moscow, Rare Earths and Geopolitical Perks: How the Kremlin Plans to Bait Trump Into a Grand Bargain published by The Moscow Times (Apr 21, 2025)
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/04/ … ain-a88762
"Ukraine as a bargaining chip
With few remaining levers, Moscow sees the war in Ukraine as its most potent bargaining chip, and officials hope to take advantage of Trump’s eagerness to secure a ceasefire.
“We need to milk Trump as much as possible, dangling the possibility of a ceasefire like a carrot before him,” one participant in the discussions said.
There is little illusion about the fragility of this opportunity.
“The window may slam shut. Trump could lose interest or, worse, bear a grudge,” diplomats and officials who spoke to The Moscow Times agreed.
However, many in the Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin hold a different view.
"We are on the right track. The priority is to recalibrate relations with the United States — a task that is anything but simple — while keeping dialogue on Ukraine alive,” one Russian diplomat said. “From there, the situation on the ground will dictate the next moves. Ultimately, it’s all about time, patience and staying the course."
********************
Of course, I am no expert and am an ignorant old fool just poking about here and there having a mind of curiosity. I will freely and openly admit there is much in this grand world that escapes me and more complex than my fragile mind can understand. Alas, such is life. What I do know is my space rent (For my mobile home) is due in a week. Once paid . . . Phew! A roof over my head to keep the space junk from hitting my head. I hear 4 - 5 Starlink Satellites fall per day.
Falling Starlink satellites worry scientists, 120 fell from space in Jan published at Business Standard (Feb 10, 2025)
https://www.business-standard.com/world … 419_1.html
"In January 2025, 120 SpaceX Starlink satellites re-entered Earth's atmosphere, disintegrating as they burned up during re-entry. The increasing frequency of such incidents is raising concerns among scientists and environmentalists about the impact of these satellites on atmospheric pollution."
. . . and . . .
"Four to five of these satellites burned up daily in January, Astronomer Jonathan McDowell noted."A fitting tribute to Musk; falling satellites and failing rockets.
Trump's Tariff Tally: $34 Billion and Counting, Global Companies Say
"Donald Trump's trade war has cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, according to a Reuters analysis of corporate disclosures, a toll that is expected to rise as ongoing uncertainty over tariffs paralyzes decision making at some of the world's largest companies.
Reuters reviewed company statements, regulatory filings, conference and media call transcripts to pull together for the first time a snapshot of the tariff cost so far for global businesses.
The $33 billion is a sum of estimates from 32 companies in the S&P 500, three companies from Europe's STOXX 600 and 21 companies in Japan's Nikkei 225 indices. Economists say the cost to businesses will likely be multiple times what companies have so far disclosed.
"You can double or triple your tally and we'd still say ... the magnitude is bound to be far greater than most people realize," said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, professor at the Yale School of Management.
The ripple effects could be worse, he added, citing the potential for lower spending from consumers and businesses, higher inflation expectations.
As the corporate earnings season draws to a close, Reuters found at least 42 companies have cut their forecasts and 16 have withdrawn or suspended their guidance. For instance, earlier this month, Walmart declined to provide a quarterly profit forecast and said it would raise prices, drawing a rebuke from Trump. Volvo Cars, one of the European automakers most exposed to U.S. tariffs, withdrew its earnings forecast for the next two years and United Airlines gave two different forecasts, saying it was impossible to predict the macro environment this year.
Automakers, airlines and consumer goods importers have been among the worst hit. Levies on raw material costs and parts including aluminum and electronics have risen, and tariffs on multiple countries are making assembling cars more expensive because of far-flung supply chains. Moving any production to the United States will also raise labor costs...."
https://money.usnews.com/investing/news … panies-saySo, if you do the suggested math - Trump has cost business over $1 TRILLION - So Far.
Did you multiply that 34M in lost sales by 5% to find that actual loss (estimated profit margin)? For increased costs did you deduct the increased sales price from that figure? Or just take a part of the picture and run with it, pretending the rest of the truth isn't there?
In any case, your reasoning to go from 34M to 1T would be interesting. Can you share it?First - it is $34 BILLION, not million.
Second - You would need to read the article to find out how the known $34 Billion translates to $1 trillion in likely loss.
Let's see, even if your 5% were true, and it isn't, that means you are fine with cutting between $1.7 Billion and $50 Billion in lost profit? Somehow I don't think Corporate America finds that OK.Sorry - that was a mistake to go from Billion to Million. You are correct.
What would you apply as a reasonable profit margin? Sales times "X" equals profit after all other deductions (taxes, raw materials, labor, transportation, etc.)? I've always thought 5% is reasonable, although it DOES vary considerably by product - food is less, medication more, and so on.
What figure would you use?
You're likely right - American Corporate is not happy giving up a little today for more tomorrow. Does not mean it is a smart attitude, though - it has cost them dearly in the past and will again. The idea that all that matters is today is not a wise thing to embrace (liberals in general need to understand this).
I'm sorry - I could not find anything in the link the even hint at a Trillion $$. It appears that this figure is pure Eso, picked of a hat of TDS. So again, can you elucidate on how you calculated that?12% is the average for the S&P 500 currently.
It was the third and fourth paragraph in the USA Today link.
The $33 billion is a sum of estimates from 32 companies in the S&P 500, three companies from Europe's STOXX 600 and 21 companies in Japan's Nikkei 225 indices. Economists say the cost to businesses will likely be multiple times what companies have so far disclosed.
"You can double or triple your tally and we'd still say ... the magnitude is bound to be far greater than most people realize," said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, professor at the Yale School of Management.*sigh* No, you don't get to make up figures that will support your accusations.
" the average net profit margin is 8.54%." Note that "Banks (particularly money centers) have the highest average profit margins of any industry at 100% gross and 30.89% net."...but there are no tariffs applied to the financial industry and thus they should not be included in discussions of the effect of tariffs. This skews the average new profit down, by quite a bit.
I like that the 33B is a result choosing .064 of the total 500 companies in the S&P. Worse for the STOXX and the Nikkei. Cherry picking companies that "prove" your point really helps, doesn't it?
You do realize that everything you are posting is showing just how pathetic your source is - the source you say results in figures that "prove" your point?
https://www.venasolutions.com/blog/aver … y-industrySorry, but it is not I who makes up figures.
Where is the so-called "cherry picking"? Just because their analysis produces an answer you don't like doesn't mean a well-respected news agency didn't 1) pull together all that was available or 2) an appropriate random sample. But, if "cherry-picking makes you feel better ...
I looked for a weighted average of each of the Net Profits listed in you blog and didn't find one. So, I will go with the average of the S&P 500.How else do you go from an actual 8% to 12% without cherry picking?
But you didn't have the "average" of the S&P 500. That was the point. You have the average (presumably) of .064 of the S&P (hardly that magical "appropriate random sample"), with every indication that it was very carefully chosen for the highest figure possible.
How as it "cost them dearly" in the past? Do you have examples that apply to most and not just one or two?
Example - Toyota delving deep into and producing the first hybrid vehicle years ahead of anything Detroit could do. It cost America dearly in lost sales of that product. This is the type of thing I mean.
I'm sorry, but this kind of behavior is well known in American business. They are simply unwilling to take risks, unwilling to spend today for results that may be a decade away and may not happen at all. I was once a part of a cost savings program for a fortune 50 company - everything we produced had to show a profit in just one year or less. That's how business operates in America - costs expected to remain "cost" rather than "profit" for more than a year are rare. A new factory, perhaps or a major overhaul of one.
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 5 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 2 days ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 23
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of up
by Mary's Crumbs 13 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
- 382
Donald Trump Supporters/Voters Disenfranchised in Colorado, Who's Next
by Angie B Williams 14 months ago
Which State will be next to decide that their leaders and their State's Supreme Court are more mighty, more powerful than the U.S. Constitution and the Power, which, by design and by LAW, belongs with the American people? That's what this is.....right? A power trip? Let's be the one to outdo all...
- 40
How much power to stop the President should federal judges have?
by Credence2 2 months ago
This was an interesting topic and as usual I will weigh in with my opinion.I am for universal injunction as initiated by a federal judges. As these judges are there to interpret the law.The Trump administration wants through an executive order to blatantly change the explicit words and meaning of...
- 34
Trump attacks lawyers and “frivilous” lawsuits=Constitutional Crisis?
by Credence2 3 months ago
Trump is now attacking lawyers and the Judiciary over what he calls frivolous lawsuits. Is a frivolous lawsuit one that opposes his policies and precludes him from simply doing what he wants, contrary to established law? As with the Venezuelans, anyone can clearly see that Trump is itching for a...