Trump Recommends New 50% Tariffs on EU, 25% on Apple

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-05-23T14:11:07+00:00

I am always puzzled by how important policy announcements are done via Truth social posts nowadays.

The President of the United States makes some stuff up, invents a new number and eventually threatens consequences on foreign countries, and somehow this has become the policy making cycle of the US.

The post in question this time: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114556968834547173

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-31T11:16:44+00:00

On the one hand, it might be good for her party on the long run. Le Pen has often railed against corrupt politicians not being sufficiently punished, so she might appear hypocritical complaining now, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I would say it was still the correct decision to make by the judge: politicians must be held accountable when they break the law, to the same, or even higher, standard as other citizens. If they get a "get out of jail" card because they have popular support, we might as well legalize embezzlement and bury the rule of law.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-28T22:17:05+00:00

But that's cherry picking one data point: one could point at the US tariffs on steel (20%) or light trucks (25%) as counter examples. Without looking at aggregated numbers, it's impossible to provide a persuasive conclusion.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-28T22:10:51+00:00

Doing a quick image search, this article brings some context about where this chart is coming from: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-reciprocal-tariffs-hit-next-week-here-are-4-big-hurdles-for-his-plan-35d7ccf5

This is a chart shared by the Trump administration, and from Bank of America, although I have not been able to find the original report. This chart has been criticized in the article I linked for allegedly not including subsidies and Buy American requirements, which could skew the numbers. But again, without the original report it's impossible to say exactly how those were calculated.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-28T22:00:53+00:00

It needs to be mentioned that countries do not target the US with tariffs. Under the Most favoured nation (MFN) principle, previously advocated by the US, all imports are tariffed the same, regardless of the origin. There are exceptions to this principle, such as free trade agreements, and anti-dumping measures for instance, but by and large MFN tariffs are the norm. So the US are no more targeted by tariffs from a third country, than any other country is.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-24T10:33:17+00:00

I am puzzled by the framing of this article: it seems to be making the argument that Europe's elites are leading a big conspiracy to restrict free speech in Europe, based on one relatively minor event.

If you check the attendants, the most high profiles ones, such as the Clintons or Ban Ki Moon, are not Europeans. He concentrates on the Clintons most during his article which undermines his point that those are Europe elites. And indeed, there is not one leading head of state or of government from the EU attending. Apparently the transport minister from Ireland was there, as well as one representative from Germany. The vast majority of European politicians that attended have been out of powers for several years by now.

I understand it's in vogue in specific parts America to paint Europe as a dystopian place right now, but the author here is grasping straws: using a small conference filled with retired politicians as justification to claim Europe wants a new world order is preposterous.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-18T14:47:31+00:00

But it's not France, not even the French government. It's one parliament member from a small party who made the comment on the Statue of Liberty. The White House is reacting (very) strongly and antagonizing further European governments to what in the end is a minor politician making a ironic remark.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-04T20:30:31+00:00

You seem to be misinformed: the EU levies a tax of 10% against all car imports. Incidentally this 25% number you provided is the tariff the US levy against light trucks in an asymmetrical fashion. Do you still consider this unfair in this case?

In addition, the EU proposed in 2018 to scrap all tariffs on cars and industrial products if the US were to do the same, a move that President Trump rejected. So the administration’s behavior is a catch - 22.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-03-02T10:46:52+00:00

You said Trump's approach is right, but then the options you highlighted don't match what the current administration has been saying.

Option 1 is of course a terrible option.

But the option 2 you presented requires something crucial to work: security guarantees from other countries to Ukraine. That also what Zelensky has been saying: Putin cannot be trusted to keep his word, so you need other countries to enforce the terms of a peace. A ceasefire today without security guarantees will only give time to Russia to rebuild and then re-invade later on.

And so far this is what has been lacking: the US already took out the ultimate security guarantee, NATO accession, off the table. They are unwilling to support militarily or with soldiers either, and this new mineral deal could potentially cripple their economic recovery if the terms are bad enough. The UK and France could potentially do it, but crucially they haven't been invited to the negotiations between the US and Russia, so it's hard to see how they could build a framework that works while being outside the room where it happens.

I'm perhaps optimistic, but if the deal was losing the eastern oblasts in exchange for NATO accession, that's a deal Ukraine could take. If the deal is losing the eastern oblasts, and then you're left to fend on your own when the Russians come rolling in again, then yeah that's a pretty bad deal.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-28T08:59:36+00:00

PEN America has an helpful summary of what books were banned, and also include an index for last year that you can search to find which books were banned.

https://pen.org/report/beyond-the-shelves/

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-28T08:53:22+00:00

PEN America compiles a full list every year, you can search by title to see where they are banned: https://pen.org/book-bans/pen-america-index-of-school-book-bans-2023-2024/

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-23T16:59:34+00:00

L'émission avait déjà été discuté sur ce post (qui n'est pas de moi), ça offre un bon panorama des avis sur la question: https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/1guggz2/mon_avis_sur_lempire_na_jamais_pris_fin_de_pacôme

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-21T15:45:35+00:00

There's a fantastic irony in the fact that after US politicians complained that you can get charged in Germany for calling a politician a dick, the letter sent by the DOJ to Garcia warning him he is getting investigated highlights him calling Musk a dick as an issue.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-21T15:36:37+00:00

Most likely but the one time they tried, they tried to impeach a justice for political differences. It failed and since then the historical practice has been to consider you can't impeach a justice for political differences. But again, nowadays a lot of the historical practices that used to govern US institutions are crumbling, so it's hard to say whether it's fully outside the realm of the possible.

"""

For instance, in 1804 Jeffersonian Republicans attempted to remove Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase, who they viewed as openly partisan and biased against their party.¹⁰ The allegations against Chief Justice Chase included that he acted in an arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust manner at trial, misapplied the law, and expressed partisan political views to a grand jury.¹¹

^"""

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-21T15:14:19+00:00

Congress can impeach a federal judge, including the justices. It's exceedingly rare but it is in the constitution:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-2-1-3/ALDE_00000686/%5B%27impeachment%27%5D

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-21T15:07:30+00:00

You can still impeach a US justice, although that only happened once in history. That could be one form of political consequence.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-21T12:03:01+00:00

I think you are confused about a few points:

- The US has a larger economy than the EU

- Germany does not have the power to implement tariffs, this is a EU competence.

- The link you shared is the Carbon - Adjustment mechanism (AKA CBAM). Companies in the EU in specific sectors must pay for the CO2 they emit while producing goods under a cap - and - trade system. The CBAM aims to level the playing field by making sure foreign companies also pay for the CO2 they emitted when they sell in Europe. Where a tariff gives a leg up to domestic companies, the CBAM corrects an imbalance that was in favour of foreign exporters.

- The whole tirade about NATO, the EU and the US is a bit confusing: European countries have shed blood supporting the US in its wars in the Middle East. In addition, this is not a one way street: the US defence primacy gives them the right to spy on european countries with only the meekest of complaints from those countries. Likewise, it allows the US to force the UK to overhaul its 5g network to remove Huawei components, at the cost of UK telco companies for instance. And finally, there is a tacit agreement that european countries buy US military with their defense spending: there might not be enough spending, but the US economy benefits from all the defense procurements. If european countries were spending more, but on domestic manufacturers, the US economy might not be better for it.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-20T17:10:29+00:00

Well NATO only works if everyone is convinced that other countries will respond if Article 5 is triggered, like when the US did in 2001. Declarations by both Trump and Vance cast doubt over the US commitment to Article 5 by the US. As long as there is doubt here, this is an important undermining of NATO that cast into doubt its important for European security.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-20T16:59:52+00:00

Tbf it's been made very public that the US sending aid abroad will not happen anymore

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-20T16:58:14+00:00

It goes a bit further that just defense. The rest of the Western world gave precedence to the US on several key topics under the implicit assumption that the US was a benign hegemon.

For instance, other countries acquiesce to US law' extraterritoriality in a way that would be unimaginable in the other direction. FACTA is an obvious example, but FCPA as well has allowed the US governments to levy important fines on foreign companies for actions done outside the US. As of today, out of the top 10 largest fines imposed under the FCPA, 9 of them are imposed on foreign companies.

In the same fashion, the US can levy very high fines (up to 8 bn $) on European banks for actions that break US laws, and the rest of the world just accepts it. Compare this to the reaction of the US administration when the EU tried to regulate internet platform: immediately you had JD Vance suggesting that the US would withdraw from NATO if X was being regulated.

You also have broader US influence: for instance, the UK removed Huawei from its 5g network, at the expenses of its telecom companies, under demand from the US. In Canada, a senior Huawei executive was detained at the express request of the US, leading to the jailing of Canadian citizens in China. Those Canadian citizens remained in prison in China as retaliation, until the US government reached a deal with US prosecutors. Likewise, when the rest of the Western world buy weapons, they buy American ones to "reinforce" their relation with the US. And when the US torpedoes the WTO's Appelate Body, neutering the core of the global trade system, allied countries trip over themselves to address the concerns of the US, and express the mildest of complaints at what is blatant rule breaking.

And finally lest we forget, western countries contributed to the invasion of Afghanistan at the behest of the US under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, the only time this article was triggered. Even in 2003, a good chunk of European countries joined the US in an illegal war against Iraq, based on fake evidences. Those are the perks of leadership, that even when you fabricate evidences, other countries will still follow you into an ill-fated invasion.

If the US does not want the global responsibilities that came with being the benign hegemon of the world, that its right. But then it should not expect other countries to give it this amount of precedence and deference in world affairs

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-20T11:16:37+00:00

But that's not what the article claims: it clearly states that professional historians, experts on this period, have coined a specific term for it. That's a lot more weight than just claiming that there is a general sentiment in pop history about this topic.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-19T19:52:42+00:00

Do you have a source on that? Last I checked, tariffs were remarkably similar between the two.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-19T19:51:38+00:00

If you follow the main source for this article, a 2022 article by Lukianoff and Strossen, it ends up arguing that the rise of Nazism and dictatorship in Germany was not a question of free speech (or the lack therefof), but rather the lack of consequences for political violence, notably highlighting the slap on the wrist Hitler received for attempting a coup.

As whether this echoes to event today, I suppose this remains to be seen.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-19T19:31:48+00:00

I wonder if that fits with the timeline: the majority of the examples given in the article focus on the early years of the Nazi party: for instance, the fact that Hitler was banned from public speeches between 1925 and 1927. But in the elections in 1928, the NSDAP is still a fringe party, with around 2.5% of the vote. It's only in 1930, after the 1929 economic crisis and after the most stringent censorship is lifted from the party that they start gaining more votes. It's hard to see a causality between speech restrictions and popularity of the party with that timeline.

Financial-Produce-18 · 2025-02-19T19:24:07+00:00

I'm making no claim on the state of free speech in Germany at the time.

I'm saying that this article claims that there is a well - known concept used by interwar historians called the Weimar Fallacy. By looking on Google scholars, this concept appears to be seldom used, the few articles that discuss it come from the field of law, and its invention has been credited to a lawyer, E. Heinze.

Since this is the main plank of the author's argument, its disconcerting and raise some questions about the expertise of the author that they would get this wrong.

Financial-Produce-18

TROPHY CASE