Fact Check: Trump's False Claims About Tariffs

__________
#8 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-04-07 12:58 AM
WE are winning! All of US! Say THANKS PWESIDENT TWUMP!!

The reason you think "we" are winning is because you don't understand the game, and in all of the excitement of "Winning!" you lost the sight of the end-game - you're just one of the "apprentices" who buy DJT "vision" and stock and meme-coins... and HODL until they eventually go to 0... just like suckers who bought into his "brand" before.

Your attention is being focused [by Trump] on the "battle of tariffs" while it's only a tool that's supposedly is going to solve the "problem" of "trade deficits" and, of course, at the same time to make the US "rich" by collecting huge tariff duties and revive and protect jobs in US "manufacturing" - these are supposed to be the end goals of the "game" according to Trump, no?

That assumes that 1. the USA only has "trade deficits" because it's been "taken advantage of / raped" by countries with high tariffs that make US goods too expensive to import; and 2. the USA can import enough goods that taxes / tariffs on them will compensate for shrinking real inflation-adjusted GDP and higher costs to consumers.

Both assumptions are demonstrably wrong, because, as I pointed out here (drudge.com), after decades of world-wide free-trade agreements (WTO and some bilateral/multilateral FTAs, like Mercosur, NAFTA/USMC or whatever Trump will want to call it next, etc.), we already have nearly tariff-free world trade.

98% of world trade is governed / covered by WTO and these FTAs. Tariffs are the red herring by Trump to "win" his usual Apprentice s**tshow for his MAGA cult.

ustr.gov - The United States has comprehensive free trade agreements in force with 20 countries, separate from WTO

en.wikipedia.org - [Incomplete] List of World's Multilateral and Bilateral Trade Agreements, Areas and Zones

Trump wanting to re-make most of them into bilateral agreements will change absolutely nothing in "trade deficits" and if, for example, we get ZERO TARIFFS with every country (YAY!), we'll have the same situation we have now - same high (or higher) "trade deficits" and no income from Trump's "External Revenue Service" and no "protection" for our manufacturing sector employment - IOW, this would not solve any "problems" he told you we have and would "lose" every one of supposed goals he told you he would accomplish using tariffs for "trade wars" and in the process alienate consumers and potential consumers of our trading partners and allies.

In fact, the best thing many of these countries can do is call Trump's bluff and hand him the "win" of ZERO TARIFFs immediately - it will either not make an iota of difference from current trade or will make "trade deficits" worse. Since "trade deficits" is a phony issue anyway, nobody (except maybe some US exporters) will notice or feel any difference, but at the end of the year the embarrassing numbers will show up. At least, that's the best case scenario for US economy.

Tariffs or not, you can't force people to buy from the source they loathe, given they have the alternatives. That's why Trump couldn't find contractors to work with him and banks to finance his ill-conceived short-term splashy "projects" and how his businesses went bankrupt.

How is that for "Winning!" the game you have no idea you're actually playing? Or maybe you're just being played and someone is screwing with your brain?

If you keep your eyes on the ball instead of chasing every "squirrel" or "shining object" Trump throws out, you might keep you sanity and your money. If not, you'll be just one of many Trump cult zombies.
__________

Response: The government said there is an immediate reduction of tariffs on 19 categories of American goods to 5% from 35%, without identifying ...

LOL...

Your link-free post doesn't match up to the BKK Post Busines section news today.

Not here: www.bangkokpost.com April 6. No response formulated yet.

Not here: www.bangkokpost.com

Deputy Prime Minister Pichai Chunhavajira will visit the US in the coming days, the government said. Proposals to US officials will include raising imports of US energy, aviation products and agricultural goods and suppressing the use of Thailand as a transit point for goods heading to the US.

You maga-morons don't understand what a trade deficit is. Not matter what you do, a poor country with a cheap labor market is not going to match US consumers. It's ---- stupid

I live over here. What exactly does America make that they can't get from China or make themselves? ------ cars?

"Fact check"????

What's th' fuggin' point???

So now I've got another debate in my head; is Donald Trump really that stupid or just a bug fat liar or both?

From the article:" In a video, attached in this post on X, with 1.1 million views at the time of writing, Trump states that "Canada by the way imposes a 250-300% tariff on many of our dairy products, the first can of milk, the first little carton of milk, very low price, after that, it gets bad."

ItchyP posted an article which did absolutely nothing to contradict the statement that Donal Trump lied his ass off st thr rose Garden annoncement of his tarriffs. Canada did not ever have a 250-300% tariff on American milk. Trump makes stuff up and his stupid supporters lap it up like Canadian kittens lap up American milk!

Not so fast there, non-friendly government funded media DW-

Canada has added trade barriers to evade USMCA agreements. Canada is not a good-faith party to the agreement.

United States Prevails in USMCA Dispute on Canadian Dairy Restrictions
January 04, 2022

ustr.gov

more details about the trade barriers are in this trade pub-

Dairy Trade Flows Between The US And Canada
archive.is

#6 | Posted by itchyp

SO it's not in place now?

Then WTF are you talking about? How does it relate to the current Tariffs?

Thanks for playing.

What was the main purpose of the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934?
The act not only gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the authority to adjust tariff rates, but also the power to negotiate bilateral trade agreements without receiving prior congressional approval.

This is not a reciprocal trade agreement. Duh.

#13
read the agreement, granni.
also learn how Canada weaseled out of their part of the market access-
Dairy Trade Flows Between The US And Canada
www.thedairysite.com

#17 | Posted by itchyp

There was a disagreement.

The disagreement was resolved.

What does this have to do with tariffs today though?

The disagreement was resolved.
#18
Was it really? How do you know this? Do you suppose Canada would go to all that trouble to defeat the principles of the agreement, and then just give it all up? I guarantee that they still have a plate of policy spaghetti scraped out onto the original agreement. I have a particular disdain for these narcissistic orwellian players who self-deal via carefully crafted technicalities.

USTR officials worked closely with staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture throughout the case. A USMCA panel agreed with the United States that Canada's allocation of dairy TRQs, specifically the set-aside of a percentage of each dairy TRQ exclusively for Canadian processors, is inconsistent with Canada's commitment in Article 3.A.2.11(b) of the USMCA not to "limit access to an allocation to processors." The Panel additionally found that the Agreement makes no distinction between initial processors and "further processors", and that therefore, the restriction in Article 3.A.2.11(b) applies to all processors, including specific subsets.

See, we don't "limit access to an allocation to processors." We "limit access" to "further processors"
Sure, that's easy enough to remedy- lend me your pen, we'll fix it right now!

Canada tries to be a England Lite, but without the City of London's power it won't fly.

BTW they also figured out that the "further processors" can access US consumer market with their finished product (yogurt), and that's not really an export at all, you see, because the product essentially came from America in the first place, so it's not technically an import...

#19 | Posted by itchyp

It was resolved because your article says we won the dispute and Canada dropped it.

That's literally the definition of Resolved.

How stupid are you and what does a disagreement from 3 years ago have to do with today's tariffs and the lies justifying them?

It was resolved because your article says we won the dispute and Canada dropped it.

first, it's not "my article"- it's a USTR press release
ustr.gov

the "resolution" isn't "Canada dropped it"
the result was-

"Canada has 45 days from the date of the final report to comply with the Panel's finding"
-which leaves plenty of wiggle room to pencil-whip their disingenuous verbiage into a slightly different shape, while preserving their greasy orwellian self-justification.

what does a disagreement from 3 years ago have to do with today? you ask.
-They have been bad-faith parties all along, and I wouldn't expect a polite panel to fix them.
I think we should scrap the whole agreement. If they can't shoot straight pool, don't play.