trump tariffs worked. evidence

Author: WyIted
Trump
canada
mexico
tariff

Posts

Total: 87
#31
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,276
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@whiteflame
"please point to the change that was not already in place prior to the threat of tariffs. " Assuming the reductions from 4000 to 6000 a day to 600 are accurate and true figures that happened after Trump  became President., I can only postulate it was because of the threat of tariffs and not Canadas and Mexico's unwavering commitment to doing the right thing without being influenced. I guess I'm supposed  to believe  all  this reduction in illegal immigration just sorta happened when Trump became President. The massive reductions would have happened anyway if Kamala became President. We as the voters were just to impatient. illegal immigration is complex like rocket science.
#32
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
 Assuming the reductions from 4000 to 6000 a day to 600 are accurate and true figures that happened after Trump  became President., I can only postulate it was because of the threat of tariffs and not Canadas and Mexico's unwavering commitment to doing the right thing without being influenced.
I’m not really understanding this perspective. Are you saying that those reductions in border crossings were solely the result of the threat of tariffs and not the numerous executive actions Trump has signed and implemented since becoming president? Those I believe have a clear and direct causative link to reduced border crossings. I haven’t seen any evidence that the threat of tariffs brought on policy shifts in Mexico or Canada that have had any effect on border crossings, so while I understand giving Trump credit for that reduction, I don’t understand why that reduction should be attributed specifically to his threat of tariffs.

I guess I'm supposed  to believe  all  this reduction in illegal immigration just sorta happened when Trump became President. The massive reductions would have happened anyway if Kamala became President. We as the voters were just to impatient. illegal immigration is complex like rocket science.
That’s a pretty absurd misrepresentation of my point. I said the measures taken as a result of the threat of tariffs were largely non-unique to Trump. I did not say that everything Trump has done with regards to the border would have happened without him. I’ve even given him full credit for the reduction in border crossings, but I’m far more hesitant to award him any meaningful solvency resulting from the threat of tariffs, specifically.
#33
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,276
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
"Are you saying that those reductions in border crossings were solely the result of the threat of tariffs " Yes that is what I am saying directly. But I will concede that actually enforcing the rule of law at the boarder also had an impact to a lesser extent.
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@sadolite
 I guess I'm supposed  to believe  all  this reduction in illegal immigration just sorta happened when Trump became President.
I am pretty sure those changes started happening in November when the election was finally over.
#35
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Trump’s tariffs of Canada and Mexico was to balance US trade deficits with Mexico, Canada and even China.
But it has the reverse effect.

Adjusted for inflation, the goods deficit widened 15.4% to $111.9 billion. The goods trade deficit with Canada increased $2.9 billion to $7.9 billion in December. While the goods trade gap with China narrowed in December, it increased to $295.4 billion in 2024 from $279.1 billion in 2023.

Now Trump has to annex Garza to make up the difference.

#36
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
"Are you saying that those reductions in border crossings were solely the result of the threat of tariffs " Yes that is what I am saying directly. But I will concede that actually enforcing the rule of law at the boarder also had an impact to a lesser extent.
If you do believe that, I'd like to know why. There should be evidence that Canada and Mexico have taken actions in response to the threat of tariffs that have dramatically reduced the number of illegal border crossings. All you've given me so far is evidence that the number of border crossings have gone down, which doesn't attribute those reductions to the efforts of these two countries. Even if you did, I doubt you could provide evidence that the threat of tariffs, specifically, led them to take those actions. And that was my point from the outset: that these countries were already taking action on their borders to address these border crossings before Trump got into office. You can argue that they did so solely because they anticipated the tariffs and they felt a need to respond, but I doubt there's any evidence for that.

#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
these countries were already taking action on their borders to address these border crossings before Trump got into office.

That's possible considering the slow panic of knowing Trump could win in November, but clearly by the election results, it was too little, and too late.
#38
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
That's possible considering the slow panic of knowing Trump could win in November, but clearly by the election results, it was too little, and too late.
Sure it's possible. Does that mean that it's proof positive that Trump's tariff threats worked? I'd say not, especially considering that basically everything he got out of Mexico was already being done by them years before (so well before any election results would have been in the mix), and Biden had already worked with Trudeau on the $1.3 billion policy well before it was announced in December last year. At that point, it comes off more as trying to shoehorn it in as the "cause" behind these actions to justify the threat of the tariffs, rather than an actual cause and effect relationship.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
At best, you could say he was enforcing a bad faith promise.
#40
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,276
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@whiteflame
The point is this. The day Trump took office the illegal crossings started to plumet and tariffs were used to make bordering countries and other countries repatriate their US immigration law breaking assholes  and criminals.  Its almost as if you want to argue for unchecked lawless immigration and there is nothing that can be done to stop it so we all should just throw our hands in the air and say oh well it is what it is.
#41
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
At best, you could say he was enforcing a bad faith promise.
On that, we agree.

#42
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
The point is this. The day Trump took office the illegal crossings started to plumet and tariffs were used to make bordering countries and other countries repatriate their US immigration law breaking assholes  and criminals. 
I'd like to note that I haven't argued this and have, in fact, granted Trump full solvency on this front. I have problems with the means by which he's accomplished it, but that's a distinct issue and I'm not going to argue it here.

Its almost as if you want to argue for unchecked lawless immigration and there is nothing that can be done to stop it so we all should just throw our hands in the air and say oh well it is what it is.
I haven't made a single argument here that Trump shouldn't have taken action against illegal immigration or even argued that the actions he has taken have been ineffective. If this is your take-away from my responses, then either I've done a bad job expressing my point or you are just dramatically misinterpreting my words. My argument is and remains that the tariffs specifically have no demonstrated solvency. There is no evidence whatsoever that the threat of them was effective at reducing border crossings or that they were necessary to achieve what Trump claims he got as concessions from the Canadian and Mexican governments. The fact that the threat of them existed while the number of migrants crossing the border went down doesn't serve as evidence that they caused that decline, whether in full or in part.
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
There's an additional benefit of signaling to the world that Trump can't be treated the same way they ignored Biden.
#44
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
There's an additional benefit of signaling to the world that Trump can't be treated the same way they ignored Biden.
I'd hesitate to call it a "benefit." Assuming Biden was being ignored by these world leaders (I'll just grant that for the sake of argument) and Trump wanted to send a message that he would not be ignored, I'd say ramping up to "I will initiate a trade war with you if you don't do what I say" is a significant escalation, particularly when we're talking about allied nations. It's also notable that he backed off from that escalation at the 11th hour, so it's currently questionable whether he'd actually pull the trigger on this with Canada or Mexico. If his goal was to establish that he might be willing to do a trade war over frustrations with fentanyl and illegal immigration, then I agree, he certainly put it on the table. I just don't agree that starting from that position is a benefit.

#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
I think a lot of people have a gross conceptualization concept when it comes to "allies"

Nations don't form alliances because they "like" each other. It's all about strategic benefit. So when those benefits change over time, (as they always do) so will the state of alliances; and no amount of "pleasantries" will change that. Canada, England, and much of the EU have done in the past exactly what Trump is doing now, with little substantive response from us other than an apology tour. I don't think that policy is sustainable for any country, to apologize by default instead of demanding concessions. To frame national alliances as a feel-good kumbaya union is ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.
#46
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I think a lot of people have a gross conceptualization concept when it comes to "allies"

Nations don't form alliances because they "like" each other. It's all about strategic benefit. So when those benefits change over time (as they always do) so will the state of alliances, and no amount of pleasantries will change that. Canada, England, and much of the EU have done in the past exactly what Trump is doing now, with little substantive response from us other than an apology tour. I don't think that policy is sustainable for any country, to apologize by default instead of demanding concessions. To frame national alliances as a feel-good kumbaya union is ignorant at best and deceitful at worst.
To an extent, I agree. My problem, then, is with a sudden and dramatic change of tone that could, as we've already seen, spark a trade war overnight with those allies. Maybe the state of those alliances should be somewhat fluid, but you're talking about turning on a dime from trade partners with some problems to active hostility that can and would negatively affect global trade. Recognizing that these trade relationships should change to reflect how those benefits have shifted over time is very different from threatening to upend the entire relationship, and I don't think framing this as a dichotomy of "feel-good kumbaya union" vs. trade war is an accurate portrayal of our options when it comes to managing these trade relationships.
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
 as we've already seen, spark a trade war overnight with those allies.
Let's assume this premise is true, wouldn't that mean our alliance with Canada is and has been extremely shaky if it were to be so easily unraveled?

 and I don't think framing this as a dichotomy of "feel-good kumbaya union" vs. trade war is an accurate portrayal of our options when it comes to managing these trade relationships.

I didn't mean to frame that as a dichotomy, I meant to say the idea (narrative) that alliances could be shattered over mean tweets misses the true basis for the formation of alliances between distinct nations. It's definitely deeper than the price of eggs, cheese, or maple syrup. It's not the first time foreign nations exaggerated to gain an advantage. USA can play the same game without shame.

If we were to be honest about Biden's foreign policy failures, much of it had to do with the poor treatment America got from both allies and rivals. That has to change, and shaming a leader for standing up for American interests is never going to be sustainable for the USA.
#48
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's assume this premise is true, wouldn't that mean our alliance is and has been extremely shaky if it were to be so easily unraveled?
It means our trade alliance is fragile, yes, but this is like arguing that a window is fragile because I can throw a bowling ball through it. When you exert enough negative pressure on something, it's going to take damage that isn't easily repaired. The ability to inflict that damage is not evidence that the relationship was fragile to begin with. I would argue that, when a trade relationship that has been open and largely agreeable for decades is severely disrupted by the unilateral decision of one side to implement a far-reaching and extremely damaging tariff, that's a substantial disruption that would only inflict more harm on what was previously perceived as a stable and largely cordial economic relationship.

I didn't mean to frame that as a dichotomy, I meant to say the idea (narrative) that alliances could be shattered over mean tweets misses the true basis for the formation of alliances between distinct nations. It's definitely deeper than the price of eggs, cheese, or maple syrup. It's not the first time foreign nations exaggerated to gain an advantage. USA can play the same game without shame.
They weren't "shattered over mean tweets" - they have been upended by the decision to threaten and then an apparent willingness to act on the threat of tariffs and ignite the resulting trade war. If all Trump did was write tweets and threaten without any indication of action, I don't think we'd be discussing this right now. As for exaggerating, I'm not clear what you're getting at. Where's the exaggeration in the threat that tariffs pose? Where's the exaggeration in the threat of a trade war?

#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
It means our trade alliance is fragile, yes.
Well on this point, I definitely disagree.

 largely cordial
And that kumbaya narrative needs to change if America is going to claw back the concessions given up to both allies and rivals.
#50
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,276
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@whiteflame
 Bottom line is this. Every action Trump has taken has reduced illegal immigration. So one could say nothing had any effect except Trump himself. No policy , no tariff no nothing. Trump is 100% wholly responsible for the reduction.  You can argue till you are blue in the face what actions had what effect but in the end it is Trumps leadership and "all" the actions he has taken that is responsible.
#51
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It means our trade alliance is fragile, yes.

Well on this point, I definitely disagree.
Well, I guess that's where this conversation ends, then. The US is a very powerful force in the world economy. Our taking sudden and unilateral action against other countries to bully them into doing what we want, doing it in such a way that it will cause both immediate and lasting harm to their countries, while simultaneously defying a trade agreement that we helped broker (Trump literally signed this agreement with Mexico and Canada during his first administration) should have consequences for any trade alliance, fragile or strong. If it doesn't, then that speaks more to how little the countries involved trust each other to begin with that they can just accept an upending of all trade agreements at the drop of a hat. That's not an indicator of strength.

And that kumbaya narrative needs to change if America is going to claw back the concessions given up to both allies and rivals.
I'm never going to understand the argument that a trade war is better than allowing these concessions. You'll have to explain that one to me.

#52
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
 Bottom line is this. Every action Trump has taken has reduced illegal immigration. So one could say nothing had any effect except Trump himself. No policy , no tariff no nothing. Trump is 100% wholly responsible for the reduction.  You can argue till you are blue in the face what actions had what effect but in the end it is Trumps leadership and "all" the actions he has taken that is responsible.
I don't understand this argument. You can say that Trump is responsible for the reduction and I'm granting that, but you cannot argue that every action he has taken has contributed positively to that reduction because, obviously, some have had no effect on that reduction whatsoever. Many of his policies aren't even aimed at reducing the number of illegal immigrants who cross the border. The notion that everything he has done has contributed specifically to the reduction in people crossing the border and that all of them necessarily had a positive effect simply because the numbers have gone down (which can be the result of some policies and not others) just don't hold up to any amount of scrutiny. That's not how cause and effect works.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
The US is a very powerful force in the world economy. Our taking sudden and unilateral action against other countries to bully them into doing what we want, doing it in such a way that it will cause both immediate and lasting harm to their countries .... should have consequences 
We have been doing that for hundreds of years. It's only recently that we tried to pretend we were not.
#54
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
We have been doing that for hundreds of years. It's only recently that we tried to pretend we were not.
Yes, and that stopped in 1942. It’s been roughly 80 years since the US imposed tariffs, and quite a while since many of the nations we trade with has used tariffs. It’s not “pretending” to say that that’s been the standard for trade for quite a while, that many presidents since then have focused on free trade policy, and that the now long-standing precedent of global trade is very different from what it was for those hundreds of years. “Pretending” that backsliding into trade policy from a century ago will have no lasting consequences for a now globalized world with its own distinct trade networks does not make sense to me.
#55
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Whatever the excuses. It doesn’t look good when Americas largest trading partners Mexico, Canada and China threaten to counter Trump’s tariffs with their own.
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,998
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@whiteflame
Yes, and that stopped in 1942.
Ignoring everything we have done in South America and the Middle east and the Cold War, sure.

It’s been roughly 80 years since the US imposed tariffs
You realize Biden had Tariffs on Canada in place as recent as August of 2024.
...I thought you were  well informed and more nuanced...my bad.
#57
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@whiteflame
Yes, and that stopped in 1942. It’s been roughly 80 years since the US imposed tariffs, and quite a while since many of the nations we trade with has used tariffs. It’s not “pretending” to say that that’s been the standard for trade for quite a while, that many presidents since then have focused on free trade policy,
America did not have tariffs before because America was the only superpower left after Europe collapsed. The war made America the manufacturing centre of the world where America enjoyed trade surpluses against every country it traded with including Japan and Canada.
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,647
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Savant
why don't they buy it when it sinks
Now that a few days have passed - I waited on purpose -  from you sour attitude, I will advise that NYSE isn't the only game in town, even though it closed Friday still up from Trump's election. But, even if it crashes, that's just dollars, which are, ever since Nixon took us off the gold standard [I was around, then], and not being able to sustain an export high since WW2, [I've almost been around since then] and it is not doing well against my gold investments, which are up in value by a worth of $2800 / oz. since I started buying the stuff at $400 / oz., fifty years ago, and now own over 100 lbs of the inflation-proof glitter. Not just paper shares; the heavy glitter itself. Can't say that for the dollar in my pocket right now, can I? - although, it appears like my small NYSE portfolio [mostly Apple and Amazon, purchased when both started a few circuits around the sun ago, are doing well, too. And if they crash... pffttt.
However, have to ask, if you're so upset about it, it isn 't "why don't they buy it when it sinks?" It's why don't you? Are you your own nemesis? [Yes]
#59
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,253
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@fauxlaw
True the price o& gold is soaring. But so is bitcoin.
#60
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 5,431
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Ignoring everything we have done in South America and the Middle east and the Cold War, sure.
Seriously? Are you equivocating between trade alliances and instances where we were either actively in conflict with another nation or were actively trying to push for full on regime change and/or punish current leadership? If that’s the comparison, then what you really want is to reshape trade policy into something that doesn’t recognize trade partnerships at all the moment our partners engender frustration, not to mention one that treats every instance where a country does something that frustrates us as worthy of an only slightly muted version of the same response we’ve levied on nations that are recognized as our enemies.

You realize Biden had Tariffs on Canada in place as recent as August of 2024.
...I thought you were  well informed and more nuanced...my bad.
Silly me, I thought it was obvious, but I guess I’ll specify: when I talk about tariff policy, I mean on a broad level, i.e. applying to a wide range of imports. That’s what sparks trade wars, not limits on the import of single goods like lumber. That’s why I’ve been talking about tariffs as they relate to trade wars because they tend to spark only when both sides see it as a persistent and expansive threat on their trade. 

This is just a bad faith response, dude. You know the difference, but you’re nitpicking anyway.