Yesterday, Trump also threatened Mattel because their CEO said they would move manufacturing, but not to the US since it would make their toys too expensive. Trump said, “Let him go, and we’ll put a 100 percent tariff on his toy, and he won’t sell one toy in the United States …”
Is this done for national security, or because of critical Barbie design technology, or because Hot Wheels poses a crucial role in the American economy? Is this why the Senate abandoned their Constitutional duty to levy tariffs?
There is only one explanation for the threat of 100% tariffs against a US toy manufacturer: it is the act of a capricious tyrant. In such an environment, why would foreign or domestic investors commit to long-term capital outlays?
Nevertheless, our glorious Respectable Press packaged this kabuki as a "trade deal." Trump gonna Trump, and foreigners are going to have the play the cards they're dealt. But our press doesn't have to sanewash this crap.
Heck, the Financial Times (London) this morning treated it more seriously than it deserves. Quite a disappointment from a paper that's far more reliable than its Wall Street competition.
The US Secretary of Commerce said that both countries will have a 10% tariff, the minimum for all countries, and the UK opens to agricultural imports from the US. Is it good for the UK?
He also said that the UK will protect its farmers by finding ways to disincentivising similar imports from previous supplier countries. Is this WTO compatible? Will this make obstacles to deepening trade with the EU in the future? To be seen.
Hopefully, Lutnick misspoke and Brad de Long is right that they agreed only on a vague framework, not really on a trade deal.
Yesterday, Trump also threatened Mattel because their CEO said they would move manufacturing, but not to the US since it would make their toys too expensive. Trump said, “Let him go, and we’ll put a 100 percent tariff on his toy, and he won’t sell one toy in the United States …”
Is this done for national security, or because of critical Barbie design technology, or because Hot Wheels poses a crucial role in the American economy? Is this why the Senate abandoned their Constitutional duty to levy tariffs?
There is only one explanation for the threat of 100% tariffs against a US toy manufacturer: it is the act of a capricious tyrant. In such an environment, why would foreign or domestic investors commit to long-term capital outlays?
You're just mad cause of your name.😊
Nevertheless, our glorious Respectable Press packaged this kabuki as a "trade deal." Trump gonna Trump, and foreigners are going to have the play the cards they're dealt. But our press doesn't have to sanewash this crap.
Heck, the Financial Times (London) this morning treated it more seriously than it deserves. Quite a disappointment from a paper that's far more reliable than its Wall Street competition.
The US Secretary of Commerce said that both countries will have a 10% tariff, the minimum for all countries, and the UK opens to agricultural imports from the US. Is it good for the UK?
He also said that the UK will protect its farmers by finding ways to disincentivising similar imports from previous supplier countries. Is this WTO compatible? Will this make obstacles to deepening trade with the EU in the future? To be seen.
Hopefully, Lutnick misspoke and Brad de Long is right that they agreed only on a vague framework, not really on a trade deal.
A most apt term like "Chaos monkey" doesn't make me smarter. It does help me feel a bit saner as I watch the current admin.