Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
“Anti-American fever peaked in Canada over the weekend after Trump announced the tariffs were on the way. At a pop-up DJ show in Montreal, a digital sign read “F—K TARIFFS.” On Saturday night in Ottawa, “The Star-Spangled Banner” was booed before the Senators went on to blow out the Minnesota Wild. The jeering continued through the weekend at NHL and NBA games across the country.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/03/trump-canada-trade-war-00202240
“Beijing struck back on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed 10 percent tariffs against China, announcing levies of 15 percent on U.S. liquefied natural gas and coal, and 10 percent on crude oil, farm equipment and some autos.
Beijing also set further export controls on rare metals, and announced an anti-monopoly investigation into Google, the search engine owned by Alphabet, and a number of other U.S. companies.
The Chinese measures will take effect on Feb. 10, leaving time for Trump to talk to President Xi Jinping about how to avoid further trade escalation.”
…
“Beijing also filed a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO), invoking its dispute settlement procedure.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/china-hits-back-at-trumps-tariffs-and-calls-on-the-wto/
“In exchange for the delay of these tariffs, the Mexican government agreed to send 10,000 national guard troops to its northern border while Trump vowed to stem the flow of American firearms into Mexico. Canada, meanwhile, pledged to implement its 1.3 billion border security plan (which it had already enacted in December). Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he was “very pleased with this initial outcome, and the Tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30 day period to see whether or not a final Economic deal with Canada can be structured.””
https://www.vox.com/politics/398024/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-trudeau-sheinbaum-trade-war
So far, the concessions from Mexico and Canada are: things they were going to do anyways, things you didn’t need a big tariff threat to get, and two-way deals where the U.S. made its own promises. So, rather than successful threats getting important concessions, we had economic disruption, economic fears, and acted like assholes on the world stage with nothing substantial in reward.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c805jjk2klko?fbclid=IwY2xjawIPKutleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHdadgknzalPz6135umCzu9Qb5SOyxpU30Zf0Tba-2wX9n6muYrRPPpunJQ_aem_WZZSjUOb6XsMsZQF2W_1LA
Despite producing tons of oil, the U.S. still imports a lot of oil. The stuff we produce can’t be refined by our refineries, so we ship it out to be refined and import foreign oil to refine here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evIAnt5mNGI
“An increase in tariffs of 10 percent on all imports would reduce America’s gross domestic product (GDP) by about 0.3 percent, while 60 percent tariffs on all imports from China would knock GDP down by another 0.3 percent, the CBO projects.
Meanwhile, the tariffs would “make consumer goods and capital goods more expensive, thereby reducing the purchasing power of U.S. consumers and businesses,” the CBO found. The productivity of American businesses would decline due to “limiting competition from imports and causing resources to be used less efficiently than they otherwise would have been used.”
The higher tariffs would lower the budget deficit by about $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years, the CBO also estimated. In other words, American consumers would be paying $2.7 trillion more in federal taxes over the next 10 years if Trump’s tariff plans are implemented”
https://reason.com/2024/12/23/trumps-tariffs-will-shrink-the-economy-and-reduce-investment-cbo-says/
“President Donald Trump moved forward Saturday with his plans for tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, ending a guessing game about how aggressively he would move to penalize America’s three largest trading partners.
The tariffs — as Trump has promised since after his election win — will be 25% duties on Canada and Mexico and 10% on China over issues of fentanyl and illegal migration.”
…
“tariffs on crucial energy imports from Canada will be lower, with 10% duties on those products. The carveout was an acknowledgment of US and Canadian energy interdependence.
Trump said the drug and migration issues constituted a national emergency and moved forward on the duties using authority in the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).”
…
“”Tariffs are simply taxes,” wrote Sen. Rand Paul, who is a vocal Trump advocate on other fronts. “Taxing trade will mean less trade and higher prices.”
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce added its own blistering statement that called Trump’s move “profoundly disturbing” and added that it “will have immediate and direct consequences on Canadian and American livelihoods.””
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/new-trump-tariffs-on-mexico-canada-and-china-set-to-start-tuesday-221835200.html
“A study this month by Warwick McKibbin and Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics concluded that the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China “would damage all the economies involved, including the U.S.’’“
For Mexico,’’ the study said, “a 25% tariff would be catastrophic. Moreover, the economic decline caused by the tariff could increase the incentives for Mexican immigrants to cross the border illegally into the U.S. — directly contradicting another Trump administration priority.’’
Cutler, now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said the extent of the economic damage will depend on how long the tariffs are in effect.
If it’s just a few days, “that’s one thing. If they are in place for weeks onto months, we’re going to see supply chain disruptions, higher costs for U.S. manufacturers, leading to higher prices for U.S. consumers,’’ she said. “It could have macroeconomic impacts. It could affect the stock market. Then internationally it could lead to more tension with our trading partners and make it harder for us to work with
them.””https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-says-trump-tariffs-184354384.html
“China banned the export of gallium, germanium, antimony, and industrial diamonds to the U.S., in response to U.S. trade and investment restrictions on Chinese technology companies. Though tit-for-tat tariffs occasionally lead to bilateral trade agreements, protectionism is more frequently a response in kind. China’s rare materials ban is the latest such response in the ongoing U.S.–China semiconductor trade war.”
…
“The technological trade war reduces the productive and military capacity of both countries, not just China. Technonationalism harms American and Chinese consumers, hinders economic growth, reduces cross-cultural cooperation, and makes aggression more attractive.”
https://reason.com/2024/12/04/china-goes-tit-for-tat-over-u-s-chip-bans/
“a one percentage point increase in imports from China caused a 1.9 percent decline in U.S. consumer prices, saving a representative American household roughly $1,500 a year”
…
“prices are not just about prices. When consumers have more purchasing power, they use it to buy goods and services in other, more high-productive sectors. Higher tariffs would lead to lost jobs, and inputs would become more expensive for American producers.
Some research suggests that competition from international trade can lead to better wages in new roles for U.S. workers. A 2017 paper by the economist Ildikó Magyari estimates that the American companies most exposed to Chinese imports expanded employment 2 percent more per year than other companies did. Some of these were manufacturing jobs—with higher wages, because they are in the stages of production where workers add more value—and some were complementary service jobs, in such areas as engineering, design, research and development, and marketing.
Apple offers a fascinating example. Trump has often complained that China is the biggest beneficiary of the iPhone, just because the devices are often assembled there. But when researchers Kenneth L. Kraemer, Greg Linden, and Jason Dedrick disassembled an iPhone 7 in 2018, they found that almost all of its value was captured by Western producers of parts, including hundreds of thousands of American researchers, designers, programmers, salespeople, marketers, retailers, and warehouse workers. China just got 1.3 percent of the price paid for an iPhone, and that offshoring made it possible to move U.S. labor to the more value-added parts of the supply chain.”
…
“more than a million American jobs depend directly on exports to Chinese consumers. About 0.5 percent of the U.S. work force would lose their jobs if the U.S. lost access to its third-largest goods exporting market.”
…
“more opportunities would be lost in the future, since protectionism reduces competition and innovation. If the United States shuts its doors to the best manufacturers of, say, electric cars, that may save some jobs in the short term, but it will turn the U.S. into a fenced-off auto show for more expensive and less efficient vehicles. American consumers will have to pay much more, and foreign consumers will be much less interested.”
…
“A United States bent on decoupling from China risks pushing many more innovators and entrepreneurs to the Far East. On paper there are good reasons to stop the export of sensitive technologies to geopolitical rivals, but what good does it do to fence in a geopolitical rival if cutting-edge producers feel the need to join that rival behind the fence?
One German producer of lasers and chip toolmakers, Trumpf, has faced increased obstacles and costly delays after the U.S. government pushed Germany to restrict its exports to China. In response, Trumpf moved some of its 3D-laser-cutting production to China.”
…
“This comes from a company in one of America’s closest allies, a country dependent on America’s security guarantees. Imagine how countries diplomatically closer to China will react if forced to choose between Beijing and Washington.”
…
“When economies slow, governments have a harder time keeping the populace satisfied. That often leads them to crack down on dissent. China is now doing the bare minimum to fit into the global order, and it has an awful human rights and civil liberties record at home. There is a great risk that a declining, more isolated, and less interdependent China could be much worse on both fronts.”
…
“If a rising power can see a future in which it prospers and is allowed to take its place in the established world order—or become so dominant that it can easily replace that order—it makes sense to hide its strengths and bide its time, as Deng Xiaoping encouraged the Chinese to do. But delay is defeat if further rapid growth seems impossible: if it suffers demographic decline, or if geopolitical rivals decide to starve it of resources or markets. Then the country must either accept that it will never realize its grand ambitions, or lash out.”
…
“Xi knows an invasion of Taiwan would result in an economic war with the West that would cause China tremendous pain. But what if China had already been deprived of those lucrative markets and had already lost access to investments and technologies it needs?”
https://reason.com/2025/01/18/the-real-threat-is-an-isolated-china/