Now Trump is targeting the U.K. with tarriffs how should Sir Keir handle a response?

I assume the price of oil is as a reaction to the assumption that the world economy is expected to slow considerably and therefore less oil consumed?

fancythat these are not like for like tariffs. The tariffs Trump has set is a formula based on the USA trade deficit with different countries. Hence the tariffs one poor countries and the illogical nature of them.

- this BBC verify article details "how they were worked out" and then asks "so are they reciprocal",

and "was the way they were worked out actually applied correctly"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o

I quote from the last section of the article after it shows the "how its worked out"

Are the Trump tariffs 'reciprocal
Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.

Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).

But the White House's official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.
Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US's goods trade deficit with each country.

Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.

For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff

NotSpaghetti

I suppose you can't have it both ways anyway Whitewavemark.

If you are (supposedly) making lots of money from tarrifs you are obviously importing a lot - if you are importing a lot you are not making those goods at home.

Exactly so

All I confined on the why of oil prices is

"HOUSTON, April 4 (Reuters) - Oil prices plunged 7% on Friday to settle at their lowest in over three years as China ramped up tariffs on U.S. goods, escalating a trade war that has led investors to price in a higher probability of recession.

which we dont want whatever the quirks of the oil market.

fancythat

PoliticsNerd

fancythat

I may be the only one, but I dont think what he has done with tarriffs is wrong.
Other Countries had already put, often higher, tarriffs on the US.

I think it was not nice to try to destablise world financial mrakets like that, if that is what he has done deliberately[I suspect he has as it makes sense].

He probably thought he could control them.
I think there are too many variables in doing that, to do such a risky thing.
Unless he would actually like financail chaos on top of trying to lower US interest rates.

I wonder if that view comes from swallowing, hook, line and sinker, what Trump is saying? How can you not have seen the discussion about this?

Clue is in 3rd line.

Could you explain your comment with refeerence to the actual economic fancythat. I'm sure its would help many of us. TIA.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

It will lead to starvation - and likely, economic migrants.

You are right Wyllow.

Some of the poorest countries are facing particularly high tariffs
* Cambodia: 49%.
* Bangladesh: 37%
* Laos: 48%
* Lesotho: 50%
* Madagascar: 47%

These high levels will obviously impact any labor-intensive export industries, such as fabric/basket making/ garment manufacturing.

By reducing export competitiveness it seems obvious that poverty will increase.

Thank you for that post,, NotSpagetti it lays it out very clearly.

One thing it doesn't mention is the effect it could have on citizens from very poor countries who totally rely on income from producing goods sold cheaply (like clothes, or cheap food) - and selling them in the USA - just imagine.

I'm not surprised that China has responded like for like, but gain, the consequences for all of us is huge since they provide parts for the USA on goods sold all over the world and prices will go up as the USA struggles to pass costs on.

these aren't even proper tariffs, most are based on calculations of the USA trade deficit with the country - sometimes, not all of them.

There are real dangers because of the chaotic nature of the sudden changes where businesses in the UK and elsewhere just dont know where they stand, what to do. When the FT headlines as it has today it's really serious.

I suppose you can't have it both ways anyway Whitewavemark.

If you are (supposedly) making lots of money from tarrifs you are obviously importing a lot - if you are importing a lot you are not making those goods at home.

CRF

The idea that tariffs will encourage businesses to relocate and grow in the USA assumes that tariffs must remain in force for the foreseeable future.

But

Trump indicated the following day that he was open to negotiation re- tariffs.

Two entirely contradictory statements in as many days.

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

I do wish there were about 10 GNetters on this site with great knowledge of this financial subject.
Would be very interesting to read their thoughts.

I would recommend the latest live feed of Trip - you can find it on you tube.

It gives you a real introduction into the economics of it all.

Thank you

PoliticsNerd

fancythat

I may be the only one, but I dont think what he has done with tarriffs is wrong.
Other Countries had already put, often higher, tarriffs on the US.

I think it was not nice to try to destablise world financial mrakets like that, if that is what he has done deliberately[I suspect he has as it makes sense].

He probably thought he could control them.
I think there are too many variables in doing that, to do such a risky thing.
Unless he would actually like financail chaos on top of trying to lower US interest rates.

I wonder if that view comes from swallowing, hook, line and sinker, what Trump is saying? How can you not have seen the discussion about this?

Clue is in 3rd line.

Points 3 and 4 do refer to the US fancythat.

Here's some stuff about oil. Crude oil price dropped 6%.
www.euronews.com/business/2025/04/04/crude-oil-prices-drop-6-as-opec-output-rises-and-trumps-tariffs-hit

So basically he put these tariffs on because he declared a state of emergency

It seems they may not even be legal.
What made 2nd April an Emergency when nothing has materially changed for many a year?

fancythat

I do wish there were about 10 GNetters on this site with great knowledge of this financial subject.
Would be very interesting to read their thoughts.

I would recommend the latest live feed of Trip - you can find it on you tube.

It gives you a real introduction into the economics of it all.

This appeared on the Council on Foreign Relations website - the CFR is a prominent United States think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international relations. It is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit organization.

I thought it was interesting read and might be interesting to some Gransnetters here.

Five Things to Know About Trump’s Tariffs

Donald Trump campaigned last year promising to impose tariffs at levels the United States had not seen in more than a century. So his rollout this week of a massive tariff package that repudiates eighty years of U.S economic policy falls under the heading “Promises Made, Promises Kept.” That, however, is not necessarily a good thing. Here are five things to know about the Trump tariffs.

*1.Trump’s announcement is a major shock to the global economy.*Assuming Trump does not reverse course in the next few days or weeks, which is possible given his track record, U.S. tariff rates will be higherthan at any time in the past century. Put differently, Trump’s tariff schedule is higher than the rates imposed by the infamous 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. As you might recall from high school U.S. history class, Smoot-Hawley’s tariffs deepened the Great Depression. At the same time, tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers—not foreigners, as Trump repeatedly and wrongly claims. J.P. Morgan’s research teamsaysthat Trump’s tariff package constitutes the single largest federal tax hike since Lyndon Johnson was president. That will create headwinds for the U.S. economy and raise prices for consumers.

*2.The first shoe has dropped, but not the last.*The focus since Trump rolled out his tariff package has been on the stock market’s reaction. In a word, it has been ugly. U.S. stocks yesterday had theirworst single day since 2020. The NASDAQ was down nearly 6 percent; the S&P 500 was down nearly 5 percent. But things couldget much worse. Trump’s announcement is just the first step in what will be a multi-step drama. Major U.S. trading partnerswill certainly retaliate. Just this morning, China imposeda 34 percent tariffon all imports from the United States. This retaliation will intensify the market’s woes and could usher in a global recession—and possibly worse. The irony is that the United States built the global economic order that Trump is intent on tearing down in a bid to prevent the very turmoil that Trump’s beggar-thy-neighbor policies could produce. As the saying goes: “Those who do not learn from history….”

*3.Trump’s tariffs are not reciprocal.*Trump claims he is just doing to other countries what they have done to the United States. He isn’t. It’s easy to see why he beats the reciprocity drum. “My tariffs will match your tariffs” sounds fair. (Pure reciprocity actually makes it hard to negotiate trade deals and can leave you worse off than if you allow for asymmetric concessions. But that’s another matter.) Trump, however, did not match other countries tariff for tariff or trade barrier for trade barrier. Instead, his tariffs are based on adifferent, and crude, calculation: the size of the trade deficit the United States runs in goods with a country divided by the total imported goods from that country divided by two. That calculation is why Israel was hit with 17 percent tariffs even though iteliminated all tariffs on U.S. goodsthe day before Trump’s announcement. It is also why the European Union was hit with 20 percent tariffs even though its effective trade-weighted tariff on U.S. goods is less than three percent.

4.Trump’s goal in imposing tariffs remains unclear. Trump argued in hisRose Garden remarksthat his tariffs would force firms to relocate production to the United States and create American jobs. That implies that the tariffs will stay in place. Indeed, White House officials stressed, as top trade adviser Peter Navarroput it: “This is not a negotiation.” Yet by late yesterday, Trump was saying the opposite: “The tariffs give us great power to negotiate. They always have.” He did not say what he would be asking for, or what lifting tariffs would mean for his promise to rebuild U.S. manufacturing.

5.The legal basis for Trump’s tariffsis questionable. You might recall from high school civics that the Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Over the past ninety years, Congress has delegated some of that authority to the president. Congress has done so because it reasonably judged that presidents need flexibility to address unfair trade practices and to respond to national emergencies.
In imposing tariffs this week, Trumpleaned onthe 1977International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That act authorizes presidents to regulate imports during a national emergency. Congress’s intent in passing IEEPA was not to transfer its tariff power to the president. To the contrary, it was trying to rein in presidential discretion that it thought that President Richard Nixon had abused under a predecessor statute known as the Trading With the Enemies Act.

Aglaring weaknessof IEEPA is that it does not define what constitutes a national emergency. If a national emergency is whatever a president says it is, then Congress unintentionally amended—and undercut—the constitutional structure.

That, of course, is not something that a statute can, in theory, do. So expect some injured parties tochallenge the constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs.
The question is how the courts will react. They have a long—though not unbroken—tradition of deferring to presidents who invoke “national security” as their rationale for acting.
All in all, the best advice is to buckle up.

Turbulence lies ahead. What Trump hailed as “Liberation Day” could easily turn out to be what The Economist called “Ruination Day” and investors called “Obliteration Day.”.

fancythat

I may be the only one, but I dont think what he has done with tarriffs is wrong.
Other Countries had already put, often higher, tarriffs on the US.

I think it was not nice to try to destablise world financial mrakets like that, if that is what he has done deliberately[I suspect he has as it makes sense].

He probably thought he could control them.
I think there are too many variables in doing that, to do such a risky thing.
Unless he would actually like financail chaos on top of trying to lower US interest rates.

I wonder if that view comes from swallowing, hook, line and sinker, what Trump is saying? How can you not have seen the discussion about this?

TDSyndome I know quite a bit about denazification after the war as my family were living there àt that time. I didn't know that nazis' lost their right to vote.

I can see the relationship between Hitler’s tactics at the beginning of war and Trump's when it comes to stopping or negating the votes any not likely to vote for him. It does seem as if there are some democratic judges who are standing up to him. I certainly don't envy them as it will takea lot of courage.

Thanks Churchview.

I presume the line 3 & 4 are to do with the US?

Oil prices tumbling. I dont understand that.

Risk greater than the great depression.
I was reading yesterday that to qualify as a stock market crashm it needs to srop by 20% or more. As it did in the depression.
So far, the UK at least, has dropped 5%.
Which puts it on a par with the stock market prices this time last year.
Though with Trump doing things as he is doing, I wonder if even he realises the dangerous game he is playing.

Sadly I can't offer great knowledge on the subject fancythat but I have been reading the Financial Times this morning. Here's their take on what's happening as a result of Trump's tariffs.

Nasdaq in bear market
S & P takes $5 trillion hit
Higher inflation
Lower growth
Oil prices tumbling
Risk greater than great depression
Worst drops everywhere since Covid
Global stocks rout
100,000 brewing jobs in Europe at risk

... obviously you think it's perfectly OK to think some with 'unacceptable" opinions should be silenced and disenfranchised!!

... and also how you reach this conclusion Rosie51?

I can see you are upset that people are not agreeing with you, but that doesn't mean we don't want to hear you.

Can you take the time to explain your perspective on what has happened in America and how it affects us and our government. That is the subject. Otherwise you just seem to be trying to steamroller the conversation out of existence.

Rosie51

You're entitled to your view PoliticsNerd and you obviously agree with TDSyndrome's view that I'm stupid. It may surprise you both that I'm immune to your opinions.

I think anybody who thinks those of a different persuasion should refrain from voting is displaying dictator attributes, obviously you think it's perfectly OK to think some with 'unacceptable" opinions should be silenced and disenfranchised!! In my opinion that's 'dictatorship'

"... and you obviously agree with TDSyndrome's view that I'm stupid."

Please explain how you reach that conclusion.

I do wish there were about 10 GNetters on this site with great knowledge of this financial subject.
Would be very interesting to read their thoughts.

I may be the only one, but I dont think what he has done with tarriffs is wrong.
Other Countries had already put, often higher, tarriffs on the US.

I think it was not nice to try to destablise world financial mrakets like that, if that is what he has done deliberately[I suspect he has as it makes sense].

He probably thought he could control them.
I think there are too many variables in doing that, to do such a risky thing.
Unless he would actually like financail chaos on top of trying to lower US interest rates.