[RD] Trump in Charge: The MAGA Presidency

[Archon8]

"Globalism" hehehe. You will learn what globalism really is soon. Commerce in developed countries has evolved like it is now for one reason, the richer the country is, the most expensive is to produce things in it, therefeore markets look but lesser costs. (funny as a supposedly neoliberal as Trump such dumb meassures to artificially influence the market), Being "self-suffcient" implies people will have to pay a huge price, much more expensive products and/or much lower level of life. Trump antiglobalist "strategy" is basically going 100 years back in time, which implies a much lower standard of life. There is nothing more.

Yes, I know what comparative advantage is. However, exporting natural resources to other countries with a manufacturing base just to purchase their manufactured goods is mercantilism, and has led to wide trade imbalances. This in addition to China having manipulated their currency in order to harm US manufacturing, particularly by dumping cheap steel in our markets. Trump is spurring domestic manufacturing and investment, which will save Americans money in the long term.

 

[Arakhor]

Funnily enough, years after Brexit had failed to deliver on any of its grand aims, one of its greatest cheerleaders (and member of the idle rich) Jacob Rees-Mogg claimed that "Brexit benefits" would take about 50 years to show up.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am not convinced that the US populace buys the financial capitalist line of closing
down your factories because someone else can make the products cheaper.

As for going back in time, I think it about trying to go back 50, not 100, years.

As for Brexit, this is hardly the right thread.

I will be more interested in the considered response from the Mexican government.
They won't delude themselves with the fellow English speaking nations fallacy.

 

[Angst]

exporting natural resources to other countries with a manufacturing base just to purchase their manufactured goods is mercantilism

???

and has led to wide trade imbalances

??????

 

[Archon8]

???

??????

United States Metals Exports by country 2022 | WITS Data

Merchandise trade data for United States (USA) Metals export to all countries (trading partner) including Trade Value, Product Share, Country Growth, World Growth, Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) for 2022

wits.worldbank.org

United States trade balance, exports, imports by country and region 2022 | WITS Data

Merchandise trade statistics United States (USA) exports and imports, with partner countries including number of products, Partner share, Share in total products, MFN and Effectively Applied Tariffs, duty free imports, dutiable imports, and free lines and number of trade agreements for year 2022

wits.worldbank.org

Not sure what's confusing, our bilateral trade balance sheets are public record.

 

[Angst]

United States Metals Exports by country 2022 | WITS Data

Merchandise trade data for United States (USA) Metals export to all countries (trading partner) including Trade Value, Product Share, Country Growth, World Growth, Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) for 2022

wits.worldbank.org

United States trade balance, exports, imports by country and region 2022 | WITS Data

Merchandise trade statistics United States (USA) exports and imports, with partner countries including number of products, Partner share, Share in total products, MFN and Effectively Applied Tariffs, duty free imports, dutiable imports, and free lines and number of trade agreements for year 2022

wits.worldbank.org

Not sure what's confusing, our bilateral trade balance sheets are public record.

no, that's not my issue. you can be for or against that. you're using mercantilist arguments to decry mercantilism, while miscategorizing mercantilism. there's no way you have a masters in history with a focus on anything early modern. carry on.

 

[Archon8]

no, that's not my issue. you can be for or against that. you're using mercantilist arguments to decry mercantilism, while miscategorizing mercantilism. there's no way you have a masters in history with a focus on anything early modern. carry on.

Not sure how much more simply I can explain this, since you seem dedicated to misunderstanding and insulting me regardless.

1. The US exports too many raw resources
2. The US lacks sufficient manufacturing
3. The US is still wealthy, and imports significant amounts of manufactured goods
4. This situation has led to large trade deficits
5. The US should impose tariffs in order to prompt domestic manufacturing and investment
6. The US will then be able to eventually export manufactured goods
7. This will lead to trade surpluses and a wealthier nation, and cheaper domestic prices
8. The leadership of the US will be in a stronger negotiating position with other countries

 

[Verbose]

Not sure how much more simply I can explain this, since you seem dedicated to misunderstanding and insulting me regardless.

1. The US exports too many raw resources
2. The US lacks sufficient manufacturing
3. The US is still wealthy, and imports significant amounts of manufactured goods
4. This situation has led to large trade deficits
5. The US should impose tariffs in order to prompt domestic manufacturing and investment
6. The US will then be able to eventually export manufactured goods
7. This will lead to trade surpluses and a wealthier nation, and cheaper domestic prices
8. The leadership of the US will be in a stronger negotiating position with other countries

No it doesn't. It's the world's second largest export economy, only after China, 10% of its GDP go as exports – AND it's mostly high-end, hugely expensive services.

You brought up US metal exports. Bigly whoop... that's like 0,0015% of the total US exports.

The US is a knowledge economy in thrall to... God knows what... telling it the political equivalent to how moon is made of cheese.

Trump is telling you porkers, and you are gobbling them down.

Which is why this tariff malarky will backfire on the US. It doesn't work like Trump claims. None of it does. Still, he probably can torch the global economy like that.

 

[EnglishEdward]

A question to me is whether the US's enormous revenue streams from those
hugely expensive service "exports" is sustainable in the long term.

For various reasons, I consider that such a large scale surplus is unsustainable.
In which case, building manufacturing back up is a very rational strategy.

Of course the people who may be in for a shock are Donald's billionaire
chums (Elon etc) when the world reacts and their foreign revenue disappears.

 

[Verbose]

A question to me is whether the US's enormous revenue streams from those
hugely expensive service "exports" is sustainable in the long term.

For various reasons, I consider that such a large scale surplus is unsustainable.
In which case, building manufacturing back up is a very rational strategy.

Of course the people who may be in for a shock are Donald's billionaire
chums (Elon etc) when the world reacts and their foreign revenue disappears.

Change is the only constant. In that way there is nothing sustainable-as-in-permanent.

I feel sustainability these days comes as sets of Shibolleths: Are we talking green-shifting, likely technology driven? Or ideas of managed de-population – possibly a return to subistance economies? Or straight up national autarky the better to go to war? Or some other version?

As said, none of it is sustainable in the long run. The EU currently has a 150 billion USD annual manufactured goods trade surplus with the US. The US otoh has a 100 billion USD trade surplus in services to the EU. So the actual disparity to the US' disadvantage (and debatable if it really is) is 50 billion with the EU per Annum. Where the US export 3000+ billions every year. (740 billion USD exports to the EU in 2023 – 25% or so of total US exports to the EU – vs 790 billion USD in EU exports to the US.) If one brings in the mutual investments in each others economies – the US invested 2,45 trillion USD in the EU, while the EU reciprocated with 2,65 trillion in the US, i.e. another 200 billion USD extra the EU sank across the Atlantic.

So taking goods, services and investments, the EU stands at about -150 billion USD/year that the US profits from in the current situation. Out of a volume of financial interaction to a tune of about 6,6 trillion USD per year – so a deficit in the US favour of about 2,3% of aggregate volume, which under any kind of more... reflective... circumstances really should count as pretty much in balance. Perfect equilibrium – hard to get, and actually not even desirable in circumstances like this – one can look for things to balance out over time though.
(Actually, looking specifically at the EU goods trade balance with the US, everyone is pretty even with the US – except the Netherlands with a huge 30 billion € deficit to the US – while the US deficits to the EU lies with Germany (no surprise), Italy and Ireland, 160 billion € in total. So all the US needs to is work out is how to even things out with those three – if it's such a problem.)

But Trump is going to pour petrol over it all and set a fire, because someone told him something he didn't understand anyway - and because that's the kind of guy he is.

 

[amadeus]

However, exporting natural resources to other countries with a manufacturing base just to purchase their manufactured goods is mercantilism,

I found this part of your post confusing as your use of the term mercantilism would imply, insofar as I understand the concept, the warnings of the negative consequences of not adopting such a policy. If the U.S. had a mercantilist policy, such that it was concerned about the balance of payments going out due to trade deficits, then based on this observation would be an abject failure.

Could you clarify on this point?

 

[Archon8]

I found this part of your post confusing as your use of the term mercantilism would imply, insofar as I understand the concept, the warnings of the negative consequences of not adopting such a policy. If the U.S. had a mercantilist policy, such that it was concerned about the balance of payments going out due to trade deficits, then based on this observation would be an abject failure.

Could you clarify on this point?

In short, I want the US to import raw materials from other countries in order to export back to them manufactured goods, to generate a large trade surplus. This is actually simplified by the new Secretary of the Interior being dedicated to domestic harvesting of natural mineral resources in the US.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

We know. Your thoughts are not that complex really. But who is going to buy such hypothetical manufactured products if other countries do them cheaper?

And btw, didnt trump say EU should import more American raw resources or face tariffs?

 

[Verbose]

In short, I want the US to import raw materials from other countries in order to export back to them manufactured goods, to generate a large trade surplus. This is actually simplified by the new Secretary of the Interior being dedicated to domestic harvesting of natural mineral resources in the US.

Put a bitt different – it would be nice to go back to something like the 1950's, when things were generally booming the US and this kind of economy worked just fine – before things moved on and became more demanding.

And it's displacement activity. The problem isn't that such a economy would work better for the US – the problem is that US domestic policy choices about what kind of society to build, how, with what materials for whom, has been pretty consistently crap since at least Nixon in the 1970's. And it's getting progressively worse – hence the US Berlusconi has appeared. Just remains to be seen if he has what it takes to make an Orban in the US too?

 

[amadeus]

In short, I want the US to import raw materials from other countries in order to export back to them manufactured goods, to generate a large trade surplus. This is actually simplified by the new Secretary of the Interior being dedicated to domestic harvesting of natural mineral resources in the US.

If I may then, it sounds to me like you want a mercantilist policy. Is this correct? (The brevity of the post here is no way meant to make any insinuation.)

 

[Verbose]

And btw, didnt trump say EU should import more American raw resources or face tariffs?

Yeah, that's the really weird bit. We can't. The US doesn't have more oil and gas to sell us than it's already doing. Not unless it increases domestic production radically (Trump seems keen but not done in a jiffy), or slashes domestic consumption...

Or maybe Trump envisages some kind of scam where the US sets itself up as a middleman, and buys cheap oil and gas from third parties and sells it on to the EU at mark-up prices – because somehow the EU would accept that, and not go buy the stuff itself?

With Trump the latter is an actual possibility. It's the kind of POS BS deal one could expect from the kind of NYC realtor he is.

 

[Hehehe]

Is there a reason why Canada gets 25% tariffs while China only gets 10% tariffs? Or did I get this wrong

 

[Verbose]

Is there a reason why Canada gets 25% tariffs while China only gets 10% tariffs? Or did I get this wrong

Logic of bullying, China is a Big Boy, it could probably find a way to hurt the US if it wants to. The EU is similar, and we are still waiting for whatever Trump has in mind.

 

[Arakhor]

Possibly because Trump knows that tariffs actually raise prices and doesn't want to unduly provoke the Chinese beast.

 

[Archon8]

If I may then, it sounds to me like you want a mercantilist policy. Is this correct? (The brevity of the post here is no way meant to make any insinuation.)

Sure, as long as it favors the US. I expect citizens of other countries to likewise favor the success of their country, one of the reasons I find it laughable that non-Americans wants to lecture us on how we run our country.