25% Tariff being put on all imported cars like the CTR

[katch922]

Wow worst place to discuss politics, my biggest worry with US atm is how much Trump is adding corruption to the system. Say goodbye to democracy and I really do not want to wait around and see what happens during reelection, maybe he will get rid of elections all together who knows

Sponsored

 

[Websitesdown]

Interesting points but I would like you to take a look at the numbers your posted 1.4% 3.2%, those are normal standard tariffs. Trump is throwing around 20-30%, see the issue is his complete disregard for any policy that isn’t flashy or news worthy. He operated under “go big or go home” type philosophy which tends to end badly. He is using tariffs against allies, of which China has reached out a big helping hand to Canada and Mexico, hell BYD has plants in Mexico, instead of solidifying alliances with our closest neighbors he is threatening them. Trumps whole frame work is sick neocon/facist wet dream of taking back American supremacy which we sold a long time ago.

You're not doing the math. You're looking at the percentage. Smart man.

 

[Superhatch]

I get how emotions can hinder all common sense. Now explain the difference between communism and a religion without making yourself look like you really have no idea what your posting

You're literally talking about a singular political theory and religion as a whole. You need to defend your point. In a debate it's not up to the other party to explain why one debaters point doesn't make any sense when it's obvious to anyone who knows....words...the difference.

You might not have actually had a debate online before, or in person. But the tactic of "x=y because I say so" isn't worthy of a thought out response. Try again.

 

[Bigfx]

You're not doing the math. You're looking at the percentage. Smart man.

The big picture is what I’m looking at, the policy as I stated in my post. Those little quips you drop really are not any good. Like literally read the post, if you want to get into the math I pretty certain you aren’t ready for that.

 

[Websitesdown]

The big picture is what I’m looking at, the policy as I stated in my post. Those little quips you drop really are not any good. Like literally read the post, if you want to get into the math I pretty certain you aren’t ready for that.

Another one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/us/politics/israel-tariffs-us-imports-trump.html

 

[Bigfx]

Another one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/02/us/politics/israel-tariffs-us-imports-trump.html

you are trolling me right like literally you are trolling me. We are providing over 300 billion in arms and pay for all of Israel’s iron dome and strike the houthis for them, yeah pretty sure they are going to lower their tariffs. You seriously do not understand any of the politics going on, we are funding their whole war!!! Omg read a book or watch something other than “Capital Autism” and Joe Rogan.

 

[Websitesdown]

you are trolling me right like literally you are trolling me. We are providing over 300 billion in arms and pay for all of Israel’s iron dome and strike the houthis for them, yeah pretty sure they are going to lower their tariffs. You seriously do not understand any of the politics going on, we are funding their whole war!!! Omg read a book or watch something other than “Capital Autism” and Joe Rogan.

Just go burn some teslas and beat up some old grandmas and do some terrorism and go to prison for 20 years+. You guys are a lost cause. This country is moving on without you guys, go cry in a corner already I'm done. You guys now have your echo chamber all to yourselves.

Also, happy liberation day!

 

[Superhatch]

Vietnam is 3% of our imports. Them doing "something" will likely be tenths of a % of change for us. Huge win.

Almost every other trading partner we have is doing retaliatory tariffs (meaning we, the consumer, is getting hurt in both directions).

I know the hope is that all of the other countries we trade with will fold like Vietnam, but it's unlikely, especially with our largest partners who have way more ability to flex their economic power (see the China/Japan/Korea pact that just formed in response to US tariffs).

Again, one of the main points is you can't just do large tariffs as an economic plan and expect things to just change on their own. You -need- to have infrastructure investment, you have to have mfg investment, you have to focus on government investment in certain sectors either through tax breaks, or direct grants to spur investment.

And ideally you start all that first, then lead in with tariffs that ramp up to slowly ramp down our imports so that you have a soft impact to the economy and consumers in the US.

I don't disagree with the basic premise of rebuilding US mfg in some sectors (like the CHIPS act which for some reason were getting rid of now?), but the way it's being done is insanity.

I don't know how many of you actually work in the mfg sector, but I've been working for a mfg company in the Midwest (with a HQ in Germany) for 18 years, and I can tell you that shit is fucked right now because of how this is being implemented. Large orders are being delayed with no current plans for implementation, expansions in plants are being delayed, some lines are being set idle because nobody knows what's going to happen next.

Nobody knew a 25% tariff on foreign car imports was even on the table, and now it's something we've all got to deal with within a few weeks of announcement. That's an insane economic policy.

If you can't see how this is causing instability in the market/economy, and how not doing slower, long term planning for the largest economy in the world, ideally working with our largest trading partners and making tough deals with them, rather than proclamations, is the right way to do state/global economics I just don't think you really understand large model economics.

The "stick it to them" approach rarely works on a global scale. I'd actually argue it has never worked and will never work.

 

[timestamped]

 

[Superhatch]

Also, I've said my piece a few times in this thread, and the counter arguments don't really seem engaging with at this point so I'm going to bow out of the thread.

Later all.

 

[Websitesdown]

Also, I've said my piece a few times in this thread, and the counter arguments don't really seem engaging with at this point so I'm going to bow out of the thread.

Later all.

Happy liberation day commie. See my very detailed counter argument below.

 

[Websitesdown]

Vietnam is 3% of our imports. Them doing "something" will likely be tenths of a % of change for us. Huge win.

Almost every other trading partner we have is doing retaliatory tariffs (meaning we, the consumer, is getting hurt in both directions).

I know the hope is that all of the other countries we trade with will fold like Vietnam, but it's unlikely, especially with our largest partners who have way more ability to flex their economic power (see the China/Japan/Korea pact that just formed in response to US tariffs).

Again, one of the main points is you can't just do large tariffs as an economic plan and expect things to just change on their own. You -need- to have infrastructure investment, you have to have mfg investment, you have to focus on government investment in certain sectors either through tax breaks, or direct grants to spur investment.

And ideally you start all that first, then lead in with tariffs that ramp up to slowly ramp down our imports so that you have a soft impact to the economy and consumers in the US.

I don't disagree with the basic premise of rebuilding US mfg in some sectors (like the CHIPS act which for some reason were getting rid of now?), but the way it's being done is insanity.

I don't know how many of you actually work in the mfg sector, but I've been working for a mfg company in the Midwest (with a HQ in Germany) for 18 years, and I can tell you that shit is fucked right now because of how this is being implemented. Large orders are being delayed with no current plans for implementation, expansions in plants are being delayed, some lines are being set idle because nobody knows what's going to happen next.

Nobody knew a 25% tariff on foreign car imports was even on the table, and now it's something we've all got to deal with within a few weeks of announcement. That's an insane economic policy.

If you can't see how this is causing instability in the market/economy, and how not doing slower, long term planning for the largest economy in the world, ideally working with our largest trading partners and making tough deals with them, rather than proclamations, is the right way to do state/global economics I just don't think you really understand large model economics.

The "stick it to them" approach rarely works on a global scale. I'd actually argue it has never worked and will never work.

Alright, let’s break this down and argue back with logic. Your position seems to be that broad tariffs, like the ones being proposed or implemented, are a poorly thought-out economic strategy that destabilizes markets, hurts consumers, and fails to achieve the goal of rebuilding U.S. manufacturing without significant prior investment in infrastructure and planning. I’ll counter that with a logical defense of tariffs as a tool, while addressing your points head-on.
1. Vietnam and Small Import Percentages
You argue that Vietnam’s 3% share of U.S. imports means any change there is negligible—tenths of a percent—and thus a “huge win” is overstated. Fair enough, but this misses the bigger picture. Tariffs aren’t just about immediate economic impact; they’re a signal. If Vietnam bends (say, by lowering their own barriers or shifting production), it sets a precedent for other small players. The cumulative effect across multiple 3%-type partners could shift supply chains or trade terms in the U.S.’s favor over time. It’s not about Vietnam alone—it’s about the ripple. You’re right that it’s not a game-changer by itself, but dismissing it as irrelevant ignores how incremental wins build leverage.
2. Retaliatory Tariffs and Consumer Pain
You say almost every trading partner is retaliating, hurting U.S. consumers with higher costs in both directions. That’s true—retaliation happens, and consumers feel it short-term. But here’s the counter: economic pain isn’t the endgame; it’s the transition. Tariffs force a reorientation. If foreign goods get pricier, domestic producers get breathing room to ramp up. The consumer hit is real, but it’s not permanent if the policy works—local supply eventually fills the gap, ideally at competitive prices. Your point assumes the U.S. can’t outlast the retaliation or that partners won’t negotiate. History says otherwise: look at the 1980s Japan trade wars. Japan eventually caved on auto exports after U.S. pressure. Big players can flex, sure, but they also depend on U.S. markets—mutual pain cuts both ways.
3. Big Partners Won’t Fold Like Vietnam
You mention the China/Japan/Korea pact as proof big partners won’t buckle. That’s a strong point—alliances can counter U.S. leverage. But here’s the flip: those pacts are defensive, not invincible. China’s economy is slowing, Japan’s is stagnant, and Korea’s is export-reliant. They’re not untouchable. Tariffs hit their bottom lines too, and the U.S. is still the world’s largest consumer market. They can flex, but they can’t walk away. The hope isn’t that they “fold” instantly—it’s that prolonged pressure forces concessions. You’re right it’s not guaranteed, but it’s not impossible either. Game theory suggests a standoff where both sides eventually deal, not collapse.
4. Tariffs Alone Aren’t Enough
You argue tariffs need infrastructure, manufacturing investment, and government support first—otherwise, it’s just chaos. I’ll concede that sequencing matters: building capacity before tariffs is cleaner. But the counter is that tariffs create the urgency for that investment. Without pressure, why would firms or Congress prioritize manufacturing? The CHIPS Act (which you mention) proves this—semiconductor tariffs and subsidies came together to force action. You say we’re ditching it, but that’s not clear—funding’s still flowing. Tariffs without investment are risky, sure, but they’re not insane; they’re a catalyst. Waiting for perfect infrastructure first is ideal but slow—markets don’t reward patience.
5. Manufacturing Instability
You’ve got firsthand experience—18 years in Midwest manufacturing—and say this approach is screwing things up: delayed orders, idle lines, uncertainty from a sudden 25% car import tariff. That’s a damn good point; rapid policy shifts spook markets. But here’s the rebuttal: short-term chaos is the cost of long-term gain. Uncertainty forces adaptation—your German HQ might delay now, but they’ll either build here or lose market share later. The auto tariff wasn’t telegraphed, true—that’s sloppy execution. But instability isn’t proof the strategy’s wrong; it’s proof it’s disruptive. Disruption’s the point. If everyone knew what was coming, they’d game it, not adapt.
6. “Stick It to Them” Doesn’t Work Globally
You claim the aggressive “stick it to them” approach never works on a global scale. Never’s a big word. Smoot-Hawley in the 1930s tanked trade—fair—but Reagan’s 1980s tariffs on Japan forced concessions without crashing the system. Today’s different, sure—globalization’s deeper—but the U.S. still has unique leverage: a massive market and the dollar’s dominance. “Never works” overstates it; it’s worked when paired with clear goals and staying power. You’re right that slow, cooperative planning with partners is less messy. But messy doesn’t mean ineffective—sometimes a sledgehammer beats a handshake.
The Core Logic
Your argument hinges on tariffs being reckless without prep work, causing more harm than good. The counter is that tariffs are a blunt but proven tool to shift economic behavior. They’re not the whole plan—they’re the spark. Investment follows necessity, not the other way around. Consumers take a hit, markets wobble, but the U.S. has the size and resilience to weather it. Your manufacturing pain is real, but it’s transitional—firms adapt or die. The “insanity” you see is just the messy middle of a calculated gamble. Will it pay off? Maybe not perfectly, but writing it off as illogical ignores how pressure reshapes trade.
What’s your take on that?

 

[Bigfx]

Alright, let’s break this down and argue back with logic. Your position seems to be that broad tariffs, like the ones being proposed or implemented, are a poorly thought-out economic strategy that destabilizes markets, hurts consumers, and fails to achieve the goal of rebuilding U.S. manufacturing without significant prior investment in infrastructure and planning. I’ll counter that with a logical defense of tariffs as a tool, while addressing your points head-on.
1. Vietnam and Small Import Percentages
You argue that Vietnam’s 3% share of U.S. imports means any change there is negligible—tenths of a percent—and thus a “huge win” is overstated. Fair enough, but this misses the bigger picture. Tariffs aren’t just about immediate economic impact; they’re a signal. If Vietnam bends (say, by lowering their own barriers or shifting production), it sets a precedent for other small players. The cumulative effect across multiple 3%-type partners could shift supply chains or trade terms in the U.S.’s favor over time. It’s not about Vietnam alone—it’s about the ripple. You’re right that it’s not a game-changer by itself, but dismissing it as irrelevant ignores how incremental wins build leverage.
2. Retaliatory Tariffs and Consumer Pain
You say almost every trading partner is retaliating, hurting U.S. consumers with higher costs in both directions. That’s true—retaliation happens, and consumers feel it short-term. But here’s the counter: economic pain isn’t the endgame; it’s the transition. Tariffs force a reorientation. If foreign goods get pricier, domestic producers get breathing room to ramp up. The consumer hit is real, but it’s not permanent if the policy works—local supply eventually fills the gap, ideally at competitive prices. Your point assumes the U.S. can’t outlast the retaliation or that partners won’t negotiate. History says otherwise: look at the 1980s Japan trade wars. Japan eventually caved on auto exports after U.S. pressure. Big players can flex, sure, but they also depend on U.S. markets—mutual pain cuts both ways.
3. Big Partners Won’t Fold Like Vietnam
You mention the China/Japan/Korea pact as proof big partners won’t buckle. That’s a strong point—alliances can counter U.S. leverage. But here’s the flip: those pacts are defensive, not invincible. China’s economy is slowing, Japan’s is stagnant, and Korea’s is export-reliant. They’re not untouchable. Tariffs hit their bottom lines too, and the U.S. is still the world’s largest consumer market. They can flex, but they can’t walk away. The hope isn’t that they “fold” instantly—it’s that prolonged pressure forces concessions. You’re right it’s not guaranteed, but it’s not impossible either. Game theory suggests a standoff where both sides eventually deal, not collapse.
4. Tariffs Alone Aren’t Enough
You argue tariffs need infrastructure, manufacturing investment, and government support first—otherwise, it’s just chaos. I’ll concede that sequencing matters: building capacity before tariffs is cleaner. But the counter is that tariffs create the urgency for that investment. Without pressure, why would firms or Congress prioritize manufacturing? The CHIPS Act (which you mention) proves this—semiconductor tariffs and subsidies came together to force action. You say we’re ditching it, but that’s not clear—funding’s still flowing. Tariffs without investment are risky, sure, but they’re not insane; they’re a catalyst. Waiting for perfect infrastructure first is ideal but slow—markets don’t reward patience.
5. Manufacturing Instability
You’ve got firsthand experience—18 years in Midwest manufacturing—and say this approach is screwing things up: delayed orders, idle lines, uncertainty from a sudden 25% car import tariff. That’s a damn good point; rapid policy shifts spook markets. But here’s the rebuttal: short-term chaos is the cost of long-term gain. Uncertainty forces adaptation—your German HQ might delay now, but they’ll either build here or lose market share later. The auto tariff wasn’t telegraphed, true—that’s sloppy execution. But instability isn’t proof the strategy’s wrong; it’s proof it’s disruptive. Disruption’s the point. If everyone knew what was coming, they’d game it, not adapt.
6. “Stick It to Them” Doesn’t Work Globally
You claim the aggressive “stick it to them” approach never works on a global scale. Never’s a big word. Smoot-Hawley in the 1930s tanked trade—fair—but Reagan’s 1980s tariffs on Japan forced concessions without crashing the system. Today’s different, sure—globalization’s deeper—but the U.S. still has unique leverage: a massive market and the dollar’s dominance. “Never works” overstates it; it’s worked when paired with clear goals and staying power. You’re right that slow, cooperative planning with partners is less messy. But messy doesn’t mean ineffective—sometimes a sledgehammer beats a handshake.
The Core Logic
Your argument hinges on tariffs being reckless without prep work, causing more harm than good. The counter is that tariffs are a blunt but proven tool to shift economic behavior. They’re not the whole plan—they’re the spark. Investment follows necessity, not the other way around. Consumers take a hit, markets wobble, but the U.S. has the size and resilience to weather it. Your manufacturing pain is real, but it’s transitional—firms adapt or die. The “insanity” you see is just the messy middle of a calculated gamble. Will it pay off? Maybe not perfectly, but writing it off as illogical ignores how pressure reshapes trade.
What’s your take on that?

chat gpt is amazing, but you conclusion is the part that shows the weakness in your argument. You basically agree with what we are saying but say it’s necessary where as history and basically anyone with a 3rd grade education can see progress and change take time not seismic shift that destabilizes everything. Your floaties don’t work on this side of the pool, go back to the shallow end let the adults handle it from here. With that I’m out

 

[Websitesdown]

chat gpt is amazing, but you conclusion is the part that shows the weakness in your argument. You basically agree with what we are saying but say it’s necessary where as history and basically anyone with a 3rd grade education can see progress and change take time not seismic shift that destabilizes everything. Your floaties don’t work on this side of the pool, go back to the shallow end let the adults handle it from here. With that I’m out

I see no counter argument plus your spelling and grammar is way off. All you're doing is bashing people while completely butchering our language.

 

[Bigfx]

I see no counter argument plus your spelling and grammar is way off. All you're doing is bashing people while completely butchering our language.

LOL that’s what you got!! Man that wifi in your parents basement must be spotty, the complete incoherent and simplistic thought process you have is exactly why they want to get rid of education. They want more of you, you have no understanding of world politics your examples are cherry picked and built on straw man assumptions and arguments that orange man knows anything. The sad thing is you really think you are right, so enjoy that feeling.

Sponsored