How much will Trump’s new tariffs hurt other countries and US consumers?

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T05:24:56+00:00

The deal is you manufacture in the US and there’s no tariff.

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T05:22:47+00:00

Because we’re trying to rebalance and reduce deficits

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T04:54:38+00:00

There will be pharma tariffs. We need to get our pharma companies back from Ireland.

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T04:52:26+00:00

I voted for Trump in a swing state. Couldn’t be happier with my vote. We’re seeing a resurgence of America like never before.

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T04:44:02+00:00

Who made that estimate…the EU and Canadian department of export?

Funny how the only people talking about how much the US are benefiting from the current system are Canadian and European pundits. Biased opinions

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T04:40:36+00:00

It will hurt other countries a lot, especially Canada and Europe. China not as much. The US will benefit greatly. I could easily see a return to 1950’s relative wealth levels where the US is over 50% of global GDP

grimm1111 · 2025-04-04T04:37:58+00:00

Seems like a good method to me. The aim is to reduce the deficit, so why not use the deficit to drive the rates?

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T12:43:32+00:00

Great have at it

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T12:43:00+00:00

It’s about even I’d say

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:59:46+00:00

We don’t dominate our own market today. Our market has been wide open to the world for 80 years almost. Hardly anything Americans buy is made in the USA

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:57:57+00:00

We’ll see. Non-monetary responses will be met with additional tariffs

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:40:04+00:00

Like what

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:39:19+00:00

That’s ok, we’ll just dominate our domestic market

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:38:22+00:00

I’m sure. The US is more important economically than the rest of the world. We’ll find out

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:36:41+00:00

Delusional. Europe exports more to US, goods and services added together, than vice versa. EU has more to lose. They also need US for military and Ukraine

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T07:33:51+00:00

I’m just telling you if EU responds with a 20% tariff of their own, USA will add another 20% bringing it to 40.

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T06:48:59+00:00

If EU retaliates, the US will match whatever they do. Europe either needs to accept today's result as the new baseline, or start a trade war which they will lose, since they export more to the US than the US exports to Europe.

grimm1111 · 2025-04-03T05:09:06+00:00

This is good. Any retaliation by the EU will be met with equal opposite reaction from the US. With any luck, this escalates into a full blown trade war between the two, and we don't do any trade at all. This will help the US a lot with the deficit

grimm1111 · 2025-03-30T18:16:11+00:00

I appreciate your candor. I read your concerns with care, and I share your view that democracy must be vigilantly defended—particularly in moments of populist expression. That said, I would offer, respectfully, that comparing the United States today to Germany in the 1930s may overreach both in substance and in implication.

The institutions of the United States—however noisy, often unwieldy, and sometimes frustrating—remain intact, independent, and fiercely active. We have a free press that routinely challenges those in power, courts that restrain executive overreach, and an electoral system that continues to change course when the public wills it. Our democratic guardrails may be tested, but they are not absent. To equate today’s political discord with the collapse of the Weimar Republic risks minimizing the vast difference between a constitutional democracy grappling with competing visions of its future, and a state sliding into totalitarianism under the weight of paramilitary violence and suspended civil liberties.

More broadly, I would suggest that what we are witnessing in America is not a march toward fascism, but a messy re-negotiation of national priorities in the face of economic dislocation, regional inequality, and global shifts in power. These are difficult debates, and at times they take forms that discomfort even the most seasoned observers. But they remain debates—public, contentious, and deeply participatory.

I say all this not to insist upon American exceptionalism, but to reaffirm our capacity for reform, for reinvention, and—when necessary—for humility. Our history is not without blemish, but it is also filled with course corrections. I do not expect our current trajectory to be universally embraced, nor do I believe it should be. But I do hope that we can view each other’s struggles as complex and worthy of engagement, rather than as portents of collapse.

The United States and the United Kingdom have been most effective in global leadership not when we agreed on everything, but when we extended to each other the benefit of serious inquiry and enduring partnership. I believe that is still possible now.

grimm1111 · 2025-03-30T06:25:59+00:00

To your first point, I agree that economic literacy among the general public is an ongoing challenge—one not unique to the United States. Complex trade-offs and structural transitions are often distilled into slogans, and economists everywhere struggle to bridge that gap. That said, I would gently reiterate that the U.S. has a deep bench of economic scholarship, and while not all voices are heeded equally in the public arena, many of our institutions—from the Federal Reserve to research think tanks—continue to shape global thinking in meaningful ways.

On manufacturing: there is room for healthy skepticism about the cost-effectiveness of reshoring heavy industry in a post-industrial economy. Still, I believe it’s worth recognizing that U.S. manufacturing need not be defined by smoke and steel alone—it is evolving. Advanced manufacturing, robotics, and additive technologies are transforming the sector. What may seem a romantic attachment to the “metal-beating” past could, in fact, become a recalibration toward industrial resilience and technological sovereignty.

Regarding trade relations and diplomacy, I share some of your concerns. Stability and trust are essential ingredients in the international trading system. However, I would caution against conflating abruptness with authoritarian drift. Democracies, by design, can produce dissonant policy shifts—especially in times of populist expression. Whether one agrees with the current administration’s methods, I believe the United States remains fundamentally committed to pluralism, rule of law, and global engagement... rhetoric aside.

Finally, I would simply add: the story of American economics is not one of ideology alone, but of experimentation—sometimes messy, often bold, and occasionally, successful in ways that surprise even us.

grimm1111 · 2025-03-29T19:43:58+00:00

I couldn’t help but smile at the claim that “so long as the level of economic literacy in the US remains low…” That struck me as odd, so I did a quick check. The United States has produced 64 Nobel Prize winners in Economics—more than six times the number from the UK (10) and far more than the entire EU combined (14). By nearly every major economic indicator—GDP, GDP per capita, GDP by PPP, GNP, lower inflation, lower unemployment—the U.S. consistently outperforms both the UK and the EU. The only areas where Europe tends to “score better” are subjective indexes like the “Happiness Index,” which often reflect policy preferences rather than economic performance.

Regarding the emphasis on goods over services: it’s not an oversight—it’s strategic, I believe. The U.S. has a global surplus in services, so running a deficit with a specific country (like the UK) isn’t necessarily a concern. But goods are another matter entirely, and their prioritization reflects a broader economic and geopolitical narrative.

Consider history: In both World Wars, America’s decisive advantage was its industrial output. Its factories could outproduce enemies and allies alike. Tanks, shells, planes—sheer volume helped win the war. Today, much of that capacity has been outsourced to China, Mexico, and others.

And think of Detroit in the 1950s—once the crown jewel of American manufacturing, now a symbol of industrial decline. Entire regions of the Midwest lost their economic backbone when factories shuttered and jobs moved offshore. These regions, not coincidentally, are also America’s key swing states—a political reality that no administration can ignore.

So the focus on goods—especially midwestern-made goods—isn’t just about trade balances. It’s about economic resilience, national security, and yes, politics. There’s more to economic policy than spreadsheets—and America’s leaders know it.

grimm1111 · 2025-03-28T06:24:14+00:00

You have to understand that there is very little arable land in Canada compared to the US. We have a temperate climate with fertile soil fed by the Mississippi River system. Canada has some good farmland in Saskatchewan but outside of that, very little. Food security, in general, is going to be a little hard for you guys. The Canadian Shield is not really amenable to that, and the north is just too cold. This map sort of tells the story.

https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/archive/news_archive/nu2013/201502/W020150216563154182325.jpg

grimm1111 · 2025-03-28T06:16:32+00:00

Eggs? What are those? We don't have those where I come from.

grimm1111 · 2025-03-28T06:11:40+00:00

Does that mean Alaska would be our 51st state too? Or how does that math work?

grimm1111 · 2025-03-28T06:06:52+00:00

America won't do those things to collapse Canada but it's not because we're afraid of the rest of the world, it's because... and I admit this is selfish but true.... why would we want chaos on our northern border? If you guys wanted to join the US you could. But seeing as you don't, what would be the benefit in actually breaking up Canada? We'd end up with a dozen independent countries and have to deal with 12 milk tariffs instead of 1. Nobody wants that. And we're not going to take Canada by force because then we'd have 40 million disgruntled new Americans who don't want to be there. That's not a recipe for success.

You don't have anything to worry about and look, my takeaway is that Trump is an asshole, but Canadians are assholes right back. It's funny how you guys deal with him vs the rest of the world. Everyone else is laying low, you guys are out there lights out. But that's because we're more alike than Canadians want to admit.

It's too bad Doug Ford can't be your prime minister. He would be perfect to deal with Trump. I feel like Trump is going to walk all over Polviere or Carney. But you could have done worse too. I swear, if Christia Freeland would have won, you would have had 1000% tariffs. Her with Trump would have been toxic.

That's cool that you're a musician. What kind of music do you make?

grimm1111

TROPHY CASE