Trump’s massive ‘reciprocal’ tariffs upend global trade | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
Despite rattled financial markets, threats of retaliation and some of President Donald Trump’s biggest supporters encouraging him to back off his signature economic policy, he didn’t give in. His administration piled on heaps of new “reciprocal” tariffs Wednesday on dozens of American allies and adversaries alike, aiming to — as he claims — restore fairness and boost American manufacturing.

Summary

Donald Trump imposed sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on dozens of nations, including a 104% levy on Chinese goods, claiming to boost U.S. manufacturing.

These tariffs, calculated by dubious trade deficit formulas, hit major trading partners like the EU, Japan, and South Korea.

Economists warn of rising inflation, recession risks, and potential stagflation. JPMorgan estimates a 60% chance of global recession, while U.S. consumers may face $2,100 in added yearly costs.

Despite retaliation threats, Trump refuses to back down. Businesses and allies express concern over economic damage and trade instability.

  • gloog@fedia.io
    8·
    5 days ago

    My issue with pointing out the math error is that it isn’t even the actual problem - the entire concept is based on the incoherent idea that having a trade deficit is inherently a bad thing for some reason. The entire formula is junk, not just the one variable.

    • Makeitstop@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      5 days ago

      And yet, they are even more incompetent than that. Because even if we go along with the idea that all trade deficits are bad, that still wouldn’t explain why they would put tariffs on the countries where we already have a trade surplus.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        5 days ago

        Generally stuff like that is known as “fractally wrong”, no matter how many of their assumptions you grant them for the sake of the argument the rest still doesn’t make sense. Or put differently, much like a fractal you can zoom in to any magnification level and still get a picture that is fundamentally the same, bullshit at any level.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      5 days ago

      The entire formula is junk, not just the one variable.

      Yep, and if you saw any of the interviews of the guy who figured it out, he makes that abundantly clear

      But that’s the policy side, and that can be debated.

      Math is math

      So even if they legitimately think this will work, they’re doing what they want to do wrong.

      Like if two people were arguing over if it was better to fly from NYC to Cali or drive. That’s debatable. If the person who wanted to drive then claimed gas would be free if they broke their fuel gauge so it always said “full” because then they’d never need to fill up…

      It stops being debatable which is “better” and starts becoming explaining facts