My recommended video for this afternoon is by Zsolt Schuller (the pronunciation is I think Hungarian, and I don't know how to transliterate it - the Zs is pronounced like the s in pleasure).
He's the central person encouraging walking, wheeling and cycling to and within National Trust properties. For a reason best known to themselves, the NT call him the "Cyclists Welcome Project Manager".
His first act was to ask to change the job title to something which matches the role better .
20 minute presentation and 25 minutes of questions, covering a lot of ground including interesting material on how the NT is organised internally.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
Of course for $10bn pa, S Korea (and probably Taiwan) could each run their own nuclear deterrent. S Korea already has the missiles and the sub building capacity. Both have the power plants; S Korea has considerably more nuclear engineering expertise.
You can probably buy the whole team, packaged and ready to go, from Pakistan...
That is the essential problem, though. If Trump abandons long standing US commitments and alliances, which seems quite possible, the proliferation will very rapidly.... proliferate.
A more unstable world is likely to be expensive for everyone, including the US.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4940780-trump-frustrated-nikki-haley-campaign/ Former President Trump expressed frustration Friday with repeated calls for him to deploy former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) on the campaign trail ahead of Election Day, pointing to his strong GOP primary performance. “I’ll do what I have to do,” Trump said when asked on “Fox & Friends” if he would call Haley and ask her to campaign for him. “But let me just tell you: Nikki Haley and I fought, and I beat her by 50, 60, 90 points. I beat her in her own state. … I beat Nikki badly,” Trump said. “I beat everyone else, too — badly. Frankly I set records. Both in speed and in the magnitude of the win. Everybody keeps saying that. They don’t say get Ron [DeSantis]. And Ron did very well. “And they keep talking about Nikki, Nikki. I like Nikki. Nikki, I don’t think, should have done what she did, and that’s fine that she did it,” Trump said, referring to Haley’s decision to run against him. “But even in her own state — in South Carolina, where she was the governor — I beat her by a number. … And then they say, ‘Oh when is Nikki coming back in?’ Nikki is in. Nikki is helping us already.”..
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
Of course for $10bn pa, S Korea (and probably Taiwan) could each run their own nuclear deterrent. S Korea already has the missiles and the sub building capacity. Both have the power plants; S Korea has considerably more nuclear engineering expertise.
You can probably buy the whole team, packaged and ready to go, from Pakistan...
That is the essential problem, though. If Trump abandons long standing US commitments and alliances, which seems quite possible, the proliferation will very rapidly.... proliferate.
A more unstable world is likely to be expensive for everyone, including the US.
Tens of thousands of North Korean troops apparently now in Russia bring trained. Later will be deployed to help crush a European democracy and reduce its people to servitude. About time the West started to wake ip?
I popped in earlier for a breather on a very ungentlemanly, busy Friday to see war raging over the discounting of Boris' book.
I assumed we would have at least reached a consensus, or at least an uneasy peace, by now.
I'm keen to know the outcome.
Leon says Boris and his book are so gorgeous that WHSmith are discounting as a loss leader. I say they are discounting because the book is shite and no one (except 40,000 PB Tories) is buying it.
There's quite a funny anecdote about Boris Johnson, in the London Review of Books this week.
His classics professor at Oxford, Oswyn Murray, which apparently mentions that he sent Johnson a "renunciation of friendship" as soon as he heard he was becoming Prime Ministed. When asked what this was, Murray said it was a "renunciation amicitiae", which was issued by Roman Emperors when someone had fallen short of expectations to such an extent , that the recommendation was either that they should either go off and commit suicide somewhere, or "go into exile on the Black Sea."
That's the one thanks Viewcode. The L.R.B. really is a gem o me for unpredictable intellectual stimulation, very much I think, like BBC2 in the late 'eighties. You might get the most obscure academic or artistic arcana, or the most current political and social , or some mixture of both.
My sister up in Scotland (retired school head) allocates 30 mins each and every day mid-afternoon to reading the LRB. She does it with a coffee (her only coffee) and a couple of dates. This is the sort of person she is.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
Of course for $10bn pa, S Korea (and probably Taiwan) could each run their own nuclear deterrent. S Korea already has the missiles and the sub building capacity. Both have the power plants; S Korea has considerably more nuclear engineering expertise.
I thought the common wisdom on PB was that nuclear deterrents are useless because there are no circumstances under which anyone, not even a psycho like Putin, would be prepared to use them.
It's all quite gauling when Hunt was offering us a reduction in NI to zero and improved public services.
However the budget rolls out, I don't think you'll like it.
In the extremely unlikely event of Hunt having been in a position to deliver a budget this autumn, it would have been pretty much as brutal - even if the brutality had slightly (or even very) different targets.
How is it that spending, tax and borrowing are seemingly always in such a Gordion knot ?
Are there things gov't shouldn't be doing that they do currently do ?
Do other countries have this issue to the extent we do ?
The trouble is that what the public wants (and votes for) is lowish tax and highish spending. You can make high tax'n'spend work, or low tax'n'spend. But we don't really want either of those. So we have had several decades of ruses to allow the government to tax us less than was really sustainable. Insufficient pension provision, North Sea and privatisation (which were never going to last for ever), PFI financial engineering, then pretending that maintainence cycles don't exist.
Long story short, for a long time the British public has had something... if not for nothing, on the cheap. And something for nothing is always followed by nothing for something. It's just maths.
Well the foundational problem is productivity. 20 years of ever worsening productivity and very low growth. You need to be growing at 2% minimum every year just to stand still given inflation, and that is before you think about aging population, massive increase in the population numbers etc.
There are two ways to improve productivity.
One way is to improve productivity (value added per person) in each sector, presumably by automation.
The other way is to improve the "richness" of the economic mix - more high value added jobs and fewer low value added jobs. Even if there was no increase in productivity in each sector, by improving the mix, overall productivity would increase.
More value added jobs requires better R&D, S&M and trained people plus AI. Fewer low value jobs means automation of low value activities - eg robots. But it would leave an army of unemployed people who are not capable of producing high value goods and services.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
That's not new; it's a continuation of Trump's policy from 2017-21 when he demanded that US 'allies' pay cost + 50% for the forces stationed in their country.
But that's big picture stuff and can be diverted into negotiations, resulting in a deal with token concessions. It's in the detail where serious and immediate security risks lie.
Trump has only ever seen US forces abroad as a service to be sold, not as protecting extended US interests, never mind projecting American power and influence.
1) To create a nuclear weapon require all kinds of magic knowledge. 2) To create a nuclear weapon you require nearly pure U-235 or Pu-239
Both are not really true.
Highly Enriched Uranium requires a big plant to make - easy to spot. Though the South Africans...
Plutonium requires implosion.
Most civilian nuclear reactors produce lots of Pu-240 along with the PU-239 which is very radioactive, and can cause pre-detonation. The story goes that you can't use this as a bomb.
The US detonated a nuclear weapon test in the 1960s with plutonium at greater than 20% Pu-240.
Any reactor cooling pond contains lots of plutonium. Getting it out requires fairly basic chemistry, complicated by the radioactivity. But doable.
You can also run fuel in the reactor for less time than normal - so that it burns into 239, but not 240. This is what the military does. Normally, reactor operations are watched by the international monitors to prevent people doing this.....
There are two problems with using reactor grade plutonium.
1) The insertion speed needs to be higher 2) It is physically hot. At 20% PU-240, a basic Christie core for a bomb would be giving off 100 watts of heat. Unless cooled it would keep rising in temperature until it melted everything around itself.
The original Trinity bomb used an elaborate system of explosive lenses to blast inwards. Without going into a lot of boring stuff, techniques such as the flying plate methods and two point design shrank the amount of explosives required to pounds rather than tons, in the 1960s. The high speed X-ray cameras required to check what is going on - which were almost beyond possibility in 1945 are now standard (though expensive and rare) scientific equipment.
So (1) is much, much easier. You could test (as the did on the Manhattan project) your design for implosion, using natural uranium or any dense metal as the target.
(2) was fixed, almost accidentally by Ted Taylor. The levitated core - which is more efficient anyway. The core sits in a cavity, held in place on conical springs.
So you have space round the core to pump in and out, say, low temperature gas, to cool it. Maybe nitrogen from boiling off liquid nitrogen?
An alternative is a hollow core. In that case you would either have to used cooled tritium in a loop (funky) or remove your cooling gas before detention.
A decent sized physics lab could build the above.
Ultimately, this design led to the US building this -
The smallest bomb that we know of.
Ukraine has the plutonium (old reactor fuel).
So they would need to extract the plutonium and build a nice, efficient implosion system. There is no real barrier to either of these - except maybe the plutonium extraction. A rushed, concealed job there, might well lead to accident and deaths....
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
I mean, FFS how hard is it for the system to log your details once so that each time you are forwarded from one person to another you don't have to go right back to the start and explain everything again from scratch?
Some call-centre online chats now do this. Or at least, they now admit they do.
Of course, now the online chats begin with the AI, not a human. But spamming "operator" at them often works.
I mean this one was infuriating. I spoke to 4 different people in one insurance company about getting a lapsed policy reinstated (my car was nicked, found again and taken to the garage where it's been held hostage for 3 months). Each time they passed me on to a department they promised was the right one to help. After nearly an hour and giving my name, date of birth, postcode and an account of my situation 4 times, I finally got a quote so ridiculous that I bid my farewells, hung up and bought the same cover from the same insurer via comparethemarket.com for £400 less, in about 5 minutes.
Call centres seem to me a good example of the false economies that are all pervasive in the corporate world. Instead of, say, 100 people who are well trained, knowledgeable enough to be able to problem-solve and with the authority to do more than one basic task, they end up with 1,000 people each of whom is given a basic script, a computer that says no to any kind of personal initiative, and evidently virtually no training.
You can't re-instate a lapsed policy. If the vehicle was stolen, then found, normally they end up in a police compound. To get it out, you would need specialist insurance. A standard motor policy will often exclude this use in the Certificate of Insurance. I can understand why it may have been tricky and costly. If you went via CTM, you will probably have taken up a policy that specifically excludes you securing the release of your vehicle seized by any public body. Maybe that wasn't where the vehicle was, but I can understand why you might have had some difficulties. I get your general point though.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
That's not new; it's a continuation of Trump's policy from 2017-21 when he demanded that US 'allies' pay cost + 50% for the forces stationed in their country.
But that's big picture stuff and can be diverted into negotiations, resulting in a deal with token concessions. It's in the detail where serious and immediate security risks lie.
Trump has only ever seen US forces abroad as a service to be sold, not as protecting extended US interests, never mind projecting American power and influence.
Also views them as a personal virility symbol, I think. Eg otoh "no more foreign wars" but otoh increase spend on the military. I can see him having big public parades of soldiers and tanks like you see with Putin and Kim.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
Of course for $10bn pa, S Korea (and probably Taiwan) could each run their own nuclear deterrent. S Korea already has the missiles and the sub building capacity. Both have the power plants; S Korea has considerably more nuclear engineering expertise.
You can probably buy the whole team, packaged and ready to go, from Pakistan...
That is the essential problem, though. If Trump abandons long standing US commitments and alliances, which seems quite possible, the proliferation will very rapidly.... proliferate.
A more unstable world is likely to be expensive for everyone, including the US.
Tens of thousands of North Korean troops apparently now in Russia bring trained. Later will be deployed to help crush a European democracy and reduce its people to servitude. About time the West started to wake ip?
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
Because it leads to a diminution in trade and everybody ends up worse off. If you want to help domestic industry there are better ways to do it.
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
Because it leads to a diminution in trade and everybody ends up worse off. If you want to help domestic industry there are better ways to do it.
You could say that about any tax. Taking money off people who would otherwise have spent it on importing goods diminishes trade.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
Because it leads to a diminution in trade and everybody ends up worse off. If you want to help domestic industry there are better ways to do it.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the Laffer Curve is a thing, and the negative consequences of tariffs aren't.
Because that's literally the new GOP orthodoxy under Trump.
"Something, something... expensive BMWs" doesn't really do it.
Spending time carefully considering the consistency of Trump's policies is a fools errand and a waste of energy. He spouts something different every rally e.g. is income tax free overtime still being promised?
"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons." - President Zelensky... https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1846909481310994586
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
*Well paid tech workers tend to have the ability to move location more than the average worker.
That isn't how you encourage growth in your economy. Currently you only get one bite of this cherry lifetime, serial investors can keep playing the system. This carve out is especially for people who take all the risk to start and grow a business and they get one advantage on the first million on exit.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
The UK's current business model is to pay lots of money to old people, tax younger people, input poor people from abroad, export their children and grandchildren to abroad, and cover the gap between receipts and spending by borrowing. It's stopped working and things have stagnated since 2008. I am aware of the problems with tariffs but in this case they would help.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
Because it leads to a diminution in trade and everybody ends up worse off. If you want to help domestic industry there are better ways to do it.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the Laffer Curve is a thing, and the negative consequences of tariffs aren't.
Because that's literally the new GOP orthodoxy under Trump.
"Something, something... expensive BMWs" doesn't really do it.
"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons." - President Zelensky... https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1846909481310994586
Not going to happen unless Putin has withdrawn right back to Russia, as NATO members would then immediately be obliged to send troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians and defend a fellow NATO member
"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons." - President Zelensky... https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1846909481310994586
Not going to happen unless Putin has withdrawn right back to Russia, as NATO members would then immediately be obliged to send troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians and defend a fellow NATO member
Nope - there are precedents for conflicts between NATO members. See Turkey vs Greece.
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
*Well paid tech workers tend to have the ability to move location more than the average worker.
That isn't how you encourage growth in your economy.
There's an awful lot being briefed that sounds... sub optimal.
I get that the state of our finances requires some rather drastic action (and it would be no different had the Tories been re-elected). But too drastic, or poorly targeted, and the situation might get worse.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
Because it leads to a diminution in trade and everybody ends up worse off. If you want to help domestic industry there are better ways to do it.
It makes the total wealth worse globally, but does not necessarily make the total wealth worse locally. The Government of the United Kingdom should not be geared towards making the Chinese, EU and Americans wealthier and the people of the UK poorer.
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
*Well paid tech workers tend to have the ability to move location more than the average worker.
That isn't how you encourage growth in your economy. Currently you only get one bite of this cherry lifetime, serial investors can keep playing the system. This carve out is especially for people who take all the risk to start and grow a business and they get one advantage on the first million on exit.
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
You haven't been following his comments about Taiwan and S Korea, then ? He wants a payment of something like $10bn pa from each to maintain the US military alliance.
Of course for $10bn pa, S Korea (and probably Taiwan) could each run their own nuclear deterrent. S Korea already has the missiles and the sub building capacity. Both have the power plants; S Korea has considerably more nuclear engineering expertise.
I thought the common wisdom on PB was that nuclear deterrents are useless because there are no circumstances under which anyone, not even a psycho like Putin, would be prepared to use them.
A nuclear deterrent isn't effective to defend a war of conquest, but you can use it to prevent a war of conquest.
The purpose of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was that Ukraine should cease to exist. In that circumstance Ukraine would be prepared to use a nuclear deterrent, because there's not much to choose between nuclear annihilation and death in Russian penal colonies. At least in the prior scenario you take Moscow with you - and the Muscovites know it. So the invasion doesn't happen.
Ukraine's victory in the war against Russian invasion never reaches the threshold of Russia ceasing to exist, and so the threshold for nuclear deterrence isn't reached. Russia still has a lot more left to lose by using nuclear weapons in that scenario. That's why it won't do so, and why they didn't use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, and the US didn't use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
The reason the British armed forces still exist (just about) in addition to the nuclear deterrent is that there are things we also care about (security of international shipping lanes, etc) that we can't guarantee by threatening nuclear annihilation against those who threaten those things.
"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons." - President Zelensky... https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1846909481310994586
Not going to happen unless Putin has withdrawn right back to Russia, as NATO members would then immediately be obliged to send troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians and defend a fellow NATO member
No, Zelensky is saying that after any peace deal, there's no real future for Ukraine without either NATO membership, or a nuclear deterrent. (Since Russia would almost certainly have another go,)
I would prefer the NATO membership.
Where the peace deal sets the borders doesn't enter into that argument. And there isn't likely to be any peace deal without western guarantees, since Ukraine knows it would only be a pause.
"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons." - President Zelensky... https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1846909481310994586
Not going to happen unless Putin has withdrawn right back to Russia, as NATO members would then immediately be obliged to send troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians and defend a fellow NATO member
Nope - there are precedents for conflicts between NATO members. See Turkey vs Greece.
Russia is not a NATO member, whereas Turkey and Greece both were
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
*Well paid tech workers tend to have the ability to move location more than the average worker.
The story seems to be that it is being reviewed. Given they arent raising IT, employee NI and VAT it would be quite strange if it wasn't part of the review. I doubt they will "disappear" it but could see the rate rise from 10% maybe to 15% or so.
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
Wetherspoons is just unbeatable for cheap, good pints and crappy food. There is vast chasm to other pubs now, impossible to justify those £7 pints when I can get better here.
Sounds as though Reeves wants to disappear Enterprise Relief. Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
*Well paid tech workers tend to have the ability to move location more than the average worker.
On the face of it, this sounds sensible.
We'll, indeed. Lots of people don't take much out of a business, just sell it on for big bucks. Why shouldn't they be taxed?
Having said that, I'd be happy if everything - income, capital gains, dividends, inheritance etc - were all taxed at the same marginal rate, for everyone
So, what’s the bottom line on the pros and cons of Trump’s tariff proposals?
Cons: The tariffs would impose large burdens on middle- and lower-income families. They probably wouldn’t significantly reduce the trade deficit and might actually hurt American manufacturing. And unilateral U.S. tariff action would wreak havoc by fracturing the world trading system.
Edit: The pro, I think at least for Trump, is that it seems like a silver bullet solution to rustbelt voters who will vote for him. He probably doesn't give two hoots about the economics.
Krugman is spot on and virtually every serious international economist agrees with him. Virtually every attempt to target foreigners instead of sorting out your own problems backfires, and this will be no exception.
Of course if America is idiotic enough to elect Trump, it deserves everything it gets. Unfortunately the colleteral damage for the rest of the world would be huge.
Trump of course also imposed tariffs on EU and Chinese imports in 2016, the question is whether it sees enough US consumers switching to US made products to offset any rise in prices on foreign imports for those who still buy them and use their supplies
It's funny how the right can take something like the Laffer Curve as a matter of unimpeachable fact, and yet believe that the detail of how how you impose tariffs, and how high you set them, doesn't matter.
Isn't it more Trump acolytes rather than "the right". I mean @Fishing of this parish won't be voting for Trump and he's definitely of "the right". I'm not sure you'd find too many conservatives here that think Trump's tariffs would be a good idea tbh.
Isn't it possible Trump’s talk of raising tariffs is all "Art of the Deal" bluster, in the context of US tariffs on imports being lower than rates charged by other countries on equivalent goods exported from the US? A key plank of his trade policy is to introduce a Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite.
And so you would get into a game theory situation where other countries might rather reduce their own tariffs than suffer the increased rates charged by the US. Today’s Unhedged column in the FT covered exactly this scenario.
This has been tried before: The Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 effectively ended the Smoot-Hawley era and saw tariff rates plunging.
Reciprocal Trade Act, i.e. tariffs would go up only to match the rates that other countries currently charge. Or the opposite. Hadn't heard of that bit till today ! It's certainly been kept quiet by Trump and his opponents. The policy would make more sense with that bit.
Trump's plans rely on the revenue from the tariffs to pay for tax cuts, so it doesn't work if they're just negotiating position.
Trump has said a lot of things about tariffs; much of them contradictory. But he does call them 'wonderful' and 'brilliant', which gives more of a clue to his thinking than something he's read off a teleprompter.
I think he genuinely thinks they're a tax on foreigners and also a boost for domestic producers: a win-win. He will use them as leverage but he'll also want to impose them for their own sake.
To be honest, as long as he's just messing with taxes, it's not that important. It's when he starts using things like servicing Trident and F35s as leverage we need to really worry. And he would if he had any interest in defence matters. Fortunately, it scares him. Business and lawfare remain his comfort zones.
I think he considers imposing tariffs as "winning".
If you want to export something to the US and your goods are subject to tariffs, then you can either cut your prices to remain competitive with domestic producers or you can relocate production to the US to avoid the tariff. The protects American workers and America's strategic interests.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But it's like trying to hoist yourself up with your own shoelaces.
If someone wants to show off with a fancy, imported German car, why shouldn't they pay a hefty tariff for the privilege?
Most of the German marques have factories in the USA.
But I have no idea about the % of their range manufactured there, nor what % of sales are imported.
Hamas says we need to put innocent civilians between us and bombs, so that innocent civilians die. Then idiots in the West will cry for innocent civilians
Then enough idiot Westerners will make Hamas their heroes
Every dead Palestinian has been sacrificed by Hamas
Comments
He's the central person encouraging walking, wheeling and cycling to and within National Trust properties. For a reason best known to themselves, the NT call him the "Cyclists Welcome Project Manager".
His first act was to ask to change the job title to something which matches the role better
20 minute presentation and 25 minutes of questions, covering a lot of ground including interesting material on how the NT is organised internally.
https://youtu.be/rrT2tjvMJWA?t=937
If Trump abandons long standing US commitments and alliances, which seems quite possible, the proliferation will very rapidly.... proliferate.
A more unstable world is likely to be expensive for everyone, including the US.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4940780-trump-frustrated-nikki-haley-campaign/
Former President Trump expressed frustration Friday with repeated calls for him to deploy former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) on the campaign trail ahead of Election Day, pointing to his strong GOP primary performance.
“I’ll do what I have to do,” Trump said when asked on “Fox & Friends” if he would call Haley and ask her to campaign for him.
“But let me just tell you: Nikki Haley and I fought, and I beat her by 50, 60, 90 points. I beat her in her own state. … I beat Nikki badly,” Trump said. “I beat everyone else, too — badly. Frankly I set records. Both in speed and in the magnitude of the win. Everybody keeps saying that. They don’t say get Ron [DeSantis]. And Ron did very well.
“And they keep talking about Nikki, Nikki. I like Nikki. Nikki, I don’t think, should have done what she did, and that’s fine that she did it,” Trump said, referring to Haley’s decision to run against him. “But even in her own state — in South Carolina, where she was the governor — I beat her by a number. … And then they say, ‘Oh when is Nikki coming back in?’ Nikki is in. Nikki is helping us already.”..
About time the West started to wake ip?
One way is to improve productivity (value added per person) in each sector, presumably by automation.
The other way is to improve the "richness" of the economic mix - more high value added jobs and fewer low value added jobs. Even if there was no increase in productivity in each sector, by improving the mix, overall productivity would increase.
More value added jobs requires better R&D, S&M and trained people plus AI. Fewer low value jobs means automation of low value activities - eg robots. But it would leave an army of unemployed people who are not capable of producing high value goods and services.
America should have never gotten into this position but it was led by some very dumb people who allowed foreign countries to kill them on trade. That's why they need someone to make America strong again, make America win again, and make America great again!
But that's big picture stuff and can be diverted into negotiations, resulting in a deal with token concessions. It's in the detail where serious and immediate security risks lie.
Trump has only ever seen US forces abroad as a service to be sold, not as protecting extended US interests, never mind projecting American power and influence.
The orthodoxy goes like this
1) To create a nuclear weapon require all kinds of magic knowledge.
2) To create a nuclear weapon you require nearly pure U-235 or Pu-239
Both are not really true.
Highly Enriched Uranium requires a big plant to make - easy to spot. Though the South Africans...
Plutonium requires implosion.
Most civilian nuclear reactors produce lots of Pu-240 along with the PU-239 which is very radioactive, and can cause pre-detonation. The story goes that you can't use this as a bomb.
The US detonated a nuclear weapon test in the 1960s with plutonium at greater than 20% Pu-240.
A thorough writeup is here - https://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1212&rid=3
Any reactor cooling pond contains lots of plutonium. Getting it out requires fairly basic chemistry, complicated by the radioactivity. But doable.
You can also run fuel in the reactor for less time than normal - so that it burns into 239, but not 240. This is what the military does. Normally, reactor operations are watched by the international monitors to prevent people doing this.....
There are two problems with using reactor grade plutonium.
1) The insertion speed needs to be higher
2) It is physically hot. At 20% PU-240, a basic Christie core for a bomb would be giving off 100 watts of heat. Unless cooled it would keep rising in temperature until it melted everything around itself.
The original Trinity bomb used an elaborate system of explosive lenses to blast inwards.
Without going into a lot of boring stuff, techniques such as the flying plate methods and two point design shrank the amount of explosives required to pounds rather than tons, in the 1960s. The high speed X-ray cameras required to check what is going on - which were almost beyond possibility in 1945 are now standard (though expensive and rare) scientific equipment.
So (1) is much, much easier. You could test (as the did on the Manhattan project) your design for implosion, using natural uranium or any dense metal as the target.
(2) was fixed, almost accidentally by Ted Taylor. The levitated core - which is more efficient anyway. The core sits in a cavity, held in place on conical springs.
So you have space round the core to pump in and out, say, low temperature gas, to cool it. Maybe nitrogen from boiling off liquid nitrogen?
An alternative is a hollow core. In that case you would either have to used cooled tritium in a loop (funky) or remove your cooling gas before detention.
A decent sized physics lab could build the above.
Ultimately, this design led to the US building this -
The smallest bomb that we know of.
Ukraine has the plutonium (old reactor fuel).
So they would need to extract the plutonium and build a nice, efficient implosion system. There is no real barrier to either of these - except maybe the plutonium extraction. A rushed, concealed job there, might well lead to accident and deaths....
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/10/103_384550.html
Budget exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning a tax hike on entrepreneurs when they sell their businesses
https://x.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1847259889510347260
When Sunak cut ER from £10m to £1m - part of the logic was raising as much revenue as possible while avoiding impacting a large number of small business owners/startups.
Cutting it further will lead to a signficant backlash from:
1. SME owners
2. Employees with stock options*.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1847264611084517727
*Well paid tech workers tend to have the ability to move location more than the average worker.
Because that's literally the new GOP orthodoxy under Trump.
"Something, something... expensive BMWs" doesn't really do it.
@GoodwinMJ
The latest from Bonkers Britain
http://mattgoodwin.org"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1847310684721193290
"Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, and then it will be a defense for us, or Ukraine will be in NATO. NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons." - President Zelensky...
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1846909481310994586
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/184694317593756472
I get that the state of our finances requires some rather drastic action (and it would be no different had the Tories been re-elected).
But too drastic, or poorly targeted, and the situation might get worse.
The purpose of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was that Ukraine should cease to exist. In that circumstance Ukraine would be prepared to use a nuclear deterrent, because there's not much to choose between nuclear annihilation and death in Russian penal colonies. At least in the prior scenario you take Moscow with you - and the Muscovites know it. So the invasion doesn't happen.
Ukraine's victory in the war against Russian invasion never reaches the threshold of Russia ceasing to exist, and so the threshold for nuclear deterrence isn't reached. Russia still has a lot more left to lose by using nuclear weapons in that scenario. That's why it won't do so, and why they didn't use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, and the US didn't use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
The reason the British armed forces still exist (just about) in addition to the nuclear deterrent is that there are things we also care about (security of international shipping lanes, etc) that we can't guarantee by threatening nuclear annihilation against those who threaten those things.
NEW THREAD
(Since Russia would almost certainly have another go,)
I would prefer the NATO membership.
Where the peace deal sets the borders doesn't enter into that argument.
And there isn't likely to be any peace deal without western guarantees, since Ukraine knows it would only be a pause.
Why does an otherwise intelligent guy like you follow this clown around?
Having said that, I'd be happy if everything - income, capital gains, dividends, inheritance etc - were all taxed at the same marginal rate, for everyone
But I have no idea about the % of their range manufactured there, nor what % of sales are imported.
If some Tory MPs do self-defenestrate in pique, could he be a Reform candidate in one of the byelections?
He's monomaniacal enough.
How many other refugee camps in the world are entirely filled with people born there?
Then enough idiot Westerners will make Hamas their heroes
Every dead Palestinian has been sacrificed by Hamas