“Donald Trump’s team cuts tariffs to 30 percent, while China slashes its levies to 10 percent. Now they have 90 days to do a deal.”
…
“The de-escalation does not affect tariffs ranging up to 25 percent that Trump imposed on more than $300 billion worth of Chinese goods during his first term, leaving a wide range of goods with effective tariff rates of either 37.5 percent or 55 percent.”
…
“It also does not roll back the 25 percent “sectoral” tariffs that Trump has imposed on autos, steel and aluminum, U.S. officials said. Some other tariff increases that President Joe Biden imposed, such as on electric vehicles, also are not affected.”
…
“In a separate interview on CNBC, Bessent said the two sides may use the “Phase 1” trade deal that Trump negotiated during his first term as the “starting point” for negotiations. That pact called on China to buy an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods in 2020 and 2021, but Beijing fell well short of the goal.”
…
“The remaining 30 percent tariff on Chinese goods from Trump’s second term reflects a 10 percent “reciprocal” baseline tariff that Trump imposed on all countries on April 2 and a 20 percent tariff that he imposed earlier this year to pressure China to do more to stop the flow of precursor chemicals that are used to make fentanyl.”
“The United States has generated $46.6 billion this year from tariffs as of May 8, the latest data available — 46.3% more than the same time last year. Federal income taxes, meanwhile, brought in $2.4 trillion in 2024.
And the $14.7 billion difference in tariff revenue year-on-year is just part of the story. High levies can cause huge surges in revenue that later level off as trade patterns shift and businesses seek to lower costs along their supply chains.”
“The U.S. tax code is broken. That’s mainly because it collects revenue in an arbitrary, distortionary, and unfair manner. At the heart of the problem are “tax expenditures”: credits, deductions, and loopholes that benefit the government’s favorite groups and behaviors.
…
It’s a patchwork of exceptions and preferences designed more by lobbyists than by public servants. Policymakers claim they are encouraging savings, promoting fairness, or aiding the poor. In reality, many tax expenditures—also known as tax breaks—serve no purpose beyond enriching powerful interest groups.
The solution is to return to first principles. We must begin by defining the tax base in a principled way. What should count as income? What should be taxed, and when? Only then can we properly distinguish between legitimate exemptions and unjustifiable giveaways.”
“As a legal matter, President Donald Trump’s trade war rests on the claim that imports to the United States constitute an “unusual and extraordinary” threat requiring urgent executive action.
That’s an absurd argument, of course. The fact that Americans choose to buy or sell goods across international borders is not an emergency—it’s not even a minor worry—and certainly should not justify a massive expansion of executive power.
But Trump is going to do whatever he wants until someone stops him. On Wednesday, the Senate had a chance to do that. Instead, Republicans voted overwhelmingly to keep the “emergency” going, and thus to keep the trade war going too.
The Senate voted 49–49 on Wednesday evening to block Sen. Rand Paul’s (R–Ky.) resolution that sought to end the emergency declaration Trump signed on April 2 to impose his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States.”
“Tariffs on movies produced overseas might drive Hollywood to film more intensively in the United States, but it also makes it more difficult and expensive for American audiences to see movies made by foreign companies. Films from South Korea, India, Europe, and elsewhere compete with the U.S. film industry in terms of culture, ideas, and sometimes politics. Tariffs on overseas productions could effectively trap us with the products of Hollywood and reduce its need to adjust to the tastes of the viewing public.”
“Americans produce a lot and consume a lot. We have among the highest average incomes and we buy a lot of stuff. We derive pleasure from acquiring and using material things, whether they’re toys, clothes, video games, or cars. If 37 dolls make you happy, and you have the means, then go out and buy 37 dolls. It is not a question of whether we need them or not.
Trump’s comments are an explicit rejection of materialism, abundance, and capitalism itself. I much prefer the Trump who was obsessively tweeting about stocks going up in his first term. Not only is Trump not tweeting about stocks, but he seems entirely indifferent to the prospect of a recession.
In other comments, Trump has said that prosperity can be achieved through tariffs—which is obviously untrue—so it seems likely that he’s willing to trade off some short-term economic pain for potential long-term gain. But as any student of economics will tell you, the tariffs are all pain, and even if the president doesn’t expect a recession, we are probably going to get one.”
…
“There doesn’t seem to be as much visceral outrage at Trump’s assertion that American girls can make do with less. Yet, if there is a greater good here, Trump has been unable to articulate it. If the tariffs are in place simply because Trump romanticizes the late 1800s and thinks we can finance government spending with tariff revenue, then we are doomed.
This rhetoric from Trump has a great deal in common with Bernie Sanders’ anti-capitalist worldview. Between the tariffs, the increasingly progressive income taxes, the incompetent attempt to cut government spending, and the explicit anti-materialism, Trump is off to a bad start with capitalists.
In the past, those with a desire for free-ish markets would generally vote Republican. At least in the past, the Republicans were pro-growth. What does it mean when both major political parties are anti-growth and anti-materialism? What does it mean when the political apparatus of a country is wholly aligned for it to fail?”
Republicans and Democrats are hurtling the U.S. toward a debt crisis. The trade deficit cannot be fixed by bullying foreign countries. To fix the country’s economic woes, the U.S. needs to lower spending to reduce or eliminate the budget deficit. The U.S. depends on the world to buy U.S. debt. If they buy less, interest rates will destroy the U.S. economy. The U.S. needs to fix the budget deficit to prevent this.