Jesu Christe on a friggin’ pogo stick:
Contrary to the assumptions of the neoliberal economists who, no doubt, promoted these tariffs,
Tariffs are neoliberal now, are they?
Dear God the man’s a loon.
Jesu Christe on a friggin’ pogo stick:
Contrary to the assumptions of the neoliberal economists who, no doubt, promoted these tariffs,
Tariffs are neoliberal now, are they?
Dear God the man’s a loon.
Yes, not known for their protectionist views those neolibs Richard. I note you didn’t name the ‘neoliberal economists’, The only way it makes sense is if neo-lib is just a synonym for evil and Trump’s acts and policies are evil (q.v. TDS) therefore Trumps acts are neoliberal.
Spud is Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”.
Everything I Don’t Like Is Neoliberal – A Child’s Guide to Arguing about Economics, by Richard Murphy (Cumber Press, 2025)
The expression, beginning with “neo”, conjures up “Nazi” so is a catch-all term of abuse in certain minds.
Yes, neoliberalism is famous for its advocacy of trade protectionism. What?
As far as I’m aware, Trump is threatening to impose tarrifs in order to lean on foreign governments. In cases where they were refusing to take their illegal immigrants back for instance. I would expect that there would be some protection of US industries as well.
As a firm believer in Free Trade I should fervently oppose Trump’s tariffs.
But in this case, I am just here for the lolz.
Trade tariffs can be very useful or even essential if your ultimate aim is to negotiate bilateral free trade.
Will it bring jobs back to the US? Not for a long time. Contrary to the assumptions of the neoliberal economists who, no doubt, promoted these tariffs, adaptation can take a long time in the real world. Supply chains built up over extensive periods cannot change overnight, and that is precisely why everything I have noted is likely.
The core idea of civilisation – the planting of trees in whose shade we won’t live to sit – is completely foreign to Cumberman’s jealous mind.
Secondly, he and those advising him very clearly do not know what they are doing here. While tariffs can have an economic role in a small, heavily single-industry-dependent state at an early stage of development, large economies with long supply chains—which is what the US is—can only lose from them.
Professor of economics is ignorant of the fact that the US became a superpower in the first place thanks to tariffs. Otherwise they’d still be an agricultural colony buying manufactured goods from Europe.
I stress that I am not saying all tariffs are automatically wrong. I am saying these are.
Tariffs are BAD when Trump does it.
This is going to end in tears and, very often, things that are a great deal worse.
Spiders?
I was entertained by this chap arguing that Trump should impose lots of tariffs and cut government expenditure and then abolish federal income tax.
https://www.profstonge.com/p/trump-doubles-down-to-repeal-income
But what if lots of states increased their rates of income tax? Perhaps all US income taxes need to be abolished – there is a chap who argues in all seriousness that the income tax is unconstitutional because the constitutional amendment that introduced it was based on misreporting of state votes.
A question recycled: I understand the arguments against tariffs. Can I be confident that they apply in a world of welfare states?
Imagine if Treezon and Fat Blair had told Barnier to fuck off or we’d impose 20 per cent tariffs on Kraut cars, and French cheese and wine, increasing at the rate of 10 per cent per week …
It ought to have been the work of moments ….
@Deveril
I was always of the opinion that our negotiators wanted the terms to so bad that we would have to remain, and in the process mean that there would be jobs waiting for them in the EU apparatus when they were voted out of parliament. Alternatively they were useless twats.
– Imagine if Treezon and Fat Blair had told Barnier to fuck off or we’d impose 20 per cent tariffs on Kraut cars, and French cheese and wine, increasing at the rate of 10 per cent per week …
If your nation is a powerful, resource rich continent (essentially you’re your own planet) then in this modern world you can afford to use trade war to bully competing countries / blocks. We’re not rich enough, strong enough or independent enough to wield the tariff club unless it’s in conjunction with a big ally. Brexit was really about choosing a better big ally. We need to bite the bullet and do the costly deal to enter fully into the US’s orbit (whilst quietly building more nukular weapons with more varied delivery methods in case of an inevitable betrayal).
@PJF – “Brexit was really about choosing a better big ally.”
So all that talk of sovereignty was nonsense. It was merely about where it should be lost?
As I understand the Schiff et al arguments, the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional.
States levying an income tax is up to them.
And more power away from the centre sounds grand to me.
– So all that talk of sovereignty was nonsense. It was merely about where it should be lost?
Pretty much, yes (but then I’m not a spokesperson for Brexit).
PJF @ 5.56, that may have been your reason to vote Brexit but it certainly wasn’t mine.
And Trump merely sees that asking Canada and Mexico nicely to please stop flooding the USA with Fentanyl and migrants, and products ostensibly ‘Made in Canada / Made in Mexico’ so part of USMCA but which are actually Chinese, has not worked.
We have a great opportunity to have a free trade deal with the US. I pray our cunts in charge don’t fuck it up (or if they do fuck it up it will be deliberate and Trumps fault).
“Brexit was really about choosing a better big ally.”
So all that talk of sovereignty was nonsense. It was merely about where it should be lost?
Which part of “choosing” are you having difficulty understanding?
@Chris Miller – “Which part of “choosing” are you having difficulty understanding?”
The bit where we were told that every country would be begging us for a trade deal, so we could name our terms and not even have to choose.
@Charles
Those voices inside your head? Spoiler alert: they’re not real.
Further spoiler. We can choose, see?
@Chris Miller – “Further spoiler. We can choose, see?”
So eight years after Brexit we have an agreement about which the govenment says “potentially boosting the economy by £2 billion a year in the long run”. That’s pretty shameless. Why did it take so long? Maybe other countries were not desperate to sign trade agreement with is after all. The £2 billion is merely a prediction. And that’s £2 billion above being outside the EU with no agreement. What Brexit supporters need to justify is the difference between what we would have had inside the EU against this (and any other relevant agreements).