Remix.run Logo
trymas a day ago

Side topic, but this number puts into how crazy it was for trump[0] to go on tariff war against enemies and friends alike. All the propaganda and extortionist language about how all countries will pay up to USA.

Astronomical tariffs in some cases, trade wars and dramas, alienate all allies and from all of this they got only $130B ?

$7T of spending, $1.77T in deficit[1] and they planned to fix this hole with $100B?!

Masterminds!

…and now they need to refund it.

NB: also puts into perspective how numb I became about reading AI and AI related sums of money, and how crazy actually those numbers are.

[0] off course many knew that it’s crazy way before it happened.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_bud...

microtonal a day ago | parent | next [-]

Astronomical tariffs in some cases, trade wars and dramas, alienate all allies and from all of this they got only $130B ?

Maybe that was never the point. You present it as retaliation against 'countries that are out to get us'. Introduce the tariffs, companies pay the tariffs by increasing prices for consumers, get the inevitable loss in court, return the tariff money to the companies.

You just transferred $130B of wealth from citizens to companies.

Bonus: people are now used to the higher prices, so post-tariffs your profits are also higher.

foxyv a day ago | parent | next [-]

They also put out of business a bunch of upstart businesses that could threaten their oligopoly. In addition they acquired huge tracts of agricultural land for cheap from all the farms that went bankrupt.

0cf8612b2e1e a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was also used to frame why the new tax cuts were justified, even though the optimistic math never worked out either.

jijijijij a day ago | parent [-]

Don't forget blatant insider trading every time new tariffs were announced. It's really a win-win-win situation for the US oligarchy.

MattDamonSpace a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The whole point is “$130B is chump change for the problems caused” and that’s true if companies as well

functionmouse a day ago | parent [-]

Companies will make far more than 130b off this. There's no way they only raised prices just enough to cover the 130b and the labor required for the internal policy changes. This was a justification for price gouging. Which they will not stop doing.

hunterpayne 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Agreed, this is the real take away most people will be left with. Not only did we all pay higher prices, instead of using that money to pay off the debt we give it away to business managers who were never out that money in the first place. Politically, that doesn't accomplish what some think it does. Midterms are coming up in 8 months...and the results of the house are going to be drastic no matter which side wins. Either Trump can do what he wants or the government will be deadlocked and nothing will happen for 2 years. Neither seem like good outcomes.

lotsofpulp 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> Either Trump can do what he wants or the government will be deadlocked and nothing will happen for 2 years.

That isn’t drastic, that is already how it is.

hollywood_court a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sounds like the opposite of trickle down economics.

I-M-S a day ago | parent [-]

Trickle down economists were right, they just got the direction wrong

WesleyJohnson a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had the same thought. Even if it wasn't the original intent, it sure is a preferable outcome.

omgJustTest 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i've said this is better than tax breaks.

bluegatty a day ago | parent | prev [-]

No, they are not that smart.

Even if the tariffs are not a lot, they are potent negotiating leverage.

They def knew they were lying about much they were collecting

They def knew they were lying about who is paying

They lied to the public about that and got a bit of extra creme in the bag but the effect was mostly leverage, which 'kind of worked'.

They could have very effectively used illegal tariffs to actually do 90-deals-in-90 days, knowing the case would take time to draw out.

But - they have no plan.

Trump does not think 9 months ahead - he has grudges, grievances, and he pursues whatever grievance he wants to that day.

He doesn't forget and will push his staff to go against old enemies

The point is not to improve the economy, bring back jobs - the point is to 'Look Tough' and 'Stick it to the Libs and Foreigners' and to get elected again, failing that, rig the elections (note, his secret signed Executive order with all sorts of things regarding elections)

The 'high visibility' of ICE is not a bad thing for him - it very much in purpose to show MAGA base that he's cracking liberal, immigrant and brown people heads.

Jamming those Somalis on the concrete is exactly the optics he wants for his base.

It was only until people started dying when newsmax/fox started questioning the legitimacy and some support is lost - and not even that much among the base.

Same thing with tariffs: he will play grievance, the 'Liberal Courts' are against, him blah blah and MAGA will be fine with it.

The problem is that Core MAGA is maybe really only 20% and Soft MAGA another 15% and that's not enough to win.

But it's almost.

Narrative, performance, grievance, populism, social media, information sphere - that's it.

It's Post-Truth.

People keep talking about these through the lens of the 'issues', it's completely wrong headed - policies don't matter, only perception etc.

Reality does have a way of sneaking through though, and 'hardball reality' can change minds. People do understand Epstein, tariffs when they pay attention, unemployment, prices, 'war mostly bad' etc. etc..

This is White House Reality TV, not really policy and that's the best way to understand it.

The entire Cabinet have completely been unable to explain the tariff policy - they keep changing their views there is no consistency - it's the same with the war in Iran - everyone's saying different things, objectives are unclear.

It's irrational too think that there is 'policy' here, this is whim, impulse, populism.

kgwxd a day ago | parent [-]

You really think Trump is orchestrating any of this? He reads the script he's given.

18 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
bluegatty 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He's easily gulled but he's also still very much in charge.

There is no script. They get him to believe and think certain things, also, looking for money on the backside. Deals, freebies.

I see Trump Plazas all over the Gulf after this is over if he does not have a hard landing, which is also very possible.

myko 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not really sure he's capable of reading

jonathanlydall a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe I don't understand as I'm an outsider, but as per my recent comment on this topic [0], I fail to see the logic of how "other countries" pay the US when the tariffs are paid by the importer and not the other country which is exporting.

I do acknowledge that import taxes can in theory help local industries, especially if the other countries are subsidizing exported goods.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47238951

epolanski a day ago | parent | next [-]

Tariffs almost never make sense, unless it's an industry that's super important for your own survival.

Capitalism is about efficiency, and eventually there are going countries where producing certain items will always be more efficient. East asian countries have spent decades innovating and investing in their manufacturing capabilities.

Also, one thing that grinds my nerves are the narratives of trade balances that only focus on physical goods but conveniently ignore services.

US exports trillions in software, ai, music, videogames, financial services, cloud, and that's conveniently ignored.

Eventually tariffs come back biting those who issue them, because the moment your local industries don't need to compete anymore to survive, they have no incentives to innovate.

fc417fc802 16 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not that it's conveniently ignored. It's that a services economy, while lucrative in the good times, leaves you lacking self sufficiency and resilience. We should never have let manufacturing leave to the extent that we did, all in the name of efficiency over all else.

Of course it goes without saying that launching an absurdist comedy interpretation of a global trade war is not the way to fix the problem.

collinmcnulty 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t have a source for this handy, but I believe that in terms of goods produced, manufacturing is actually still alive and well in the US. It’s just that this is done by a much smaller and more automated workforce.

tzs 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The importer pays directly. There are three ways the importer can deal with the burden of that. In most cases it will be a combination of all three of them.

1. Raise the price they sell the imported item for.

2. Eat it.

3. Lower the price they are willing to pay the exporter.

For the Trump tariffs it has been overall it has been about 90-96% #1 and #2 and 4-10% #3. I haven't seen a breakdown of how #1 and #2 is split.

nkrisc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Tariffs are a cost a country incurs upon itself to protect industries that are critical, not for their profits, but for the capabilities they offer.

It's paying more for something just to keep it domestically available for purposes of national security.

pwg 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I fail to see the logic of how "other countries" pay the US when the tariffs are paid by the importer and not the other country which is exporting.

The "logic" is/was that this was a lie directed at his "low information supporters" who tend to simply "believe" whatever he tells them without question. Those same supporters would have been very much against having a "tax increase" levied upon them, but so long as he lied to them and told them "the other country pays the tariffs" then they were fooled into not understanding the tariffs were just a tax increase and so were "in support" of the tariffs.

That was the sole logic -- although there have been times when I've seen news blurbs that have made me wonder whether Trump himself actually believes his own lie about "other countries pay us" in regards to tariffs.

edaemon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's nonsense, that's why it's hard to understand.

sonotathrowaway a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Next time you wonder why a Trump supporter has a bad argument, remind yourself there was a nonzero number of them who literally drank bleach and Lysol after he told them too.

CamperBob2 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I like how you're being downvoted for pointing out an objective, documented fact. [1]

Of course an important corollary is that Trump did not, in fact, tell anyone to drink bleach or Lysol. His supporters were stupid enough to do it on their own initiative, at Trump's mere suggestion that it was worth looking into.

1: https://www.poison.med.wayne.edu/updates-content/kstytapp2qf...

hightrix a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> tariff war against enemies

This is an interesting way to frame a tax on Americans, but it aligns with this administrations actions.

blitzar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am old enough to remember when the great minds at DOGE found $10T a year of fraudulent Social Security spending which would have cut the total governement spending from $7T a year to negative $3T.

The DOGE refund cheque is of course, in the mail.

zelphirkalt 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The biggest damage is the souring of relations with other countries, who now no longer see the US as a reliable business partner. They have nudged countries in the EU to rather look to China. The longer Trump is in office, the bigger the damage gets. The long term course might already be set away from the US and towards China. The loss for the US cannot even be estimated yet.

Also the US is working hard on losing their military dominance. Engaging in unnecessary wars, offending its allies left and right, who are now starting to invest more into their own military, since they have learned, that they cannot rely on the US any longer, while China plays the catch-up game and is getting closer to US military capability every year.

Reputational damage is enormous of course and the US hands China easy PR wins after wins.

This seems to be the current trend. Projecting this into the future, it seems likely, that in 10, 20, 30 years from now, the most powerful global player might be China, instead of the US. Obviously, in decades a lot can happen. Future US administrations however have got a lot of repair work cut out for them. How can they convince international partners, that this does not repeat in the future, the next time a crazy administration is elected? Can they at all? Or can they fix the political landscape in their own country in that timespan? It kinda looks like their are stuck.

aduffy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They need to refund it *with interest*, according to filings cited in the article.

mejutoco a day ago | parent [-]

6-7 percent interest.

loeg 18 hours ago | parent [-]

SOFR is only around 3.7%. And it's, you know, an annualized rate. The earliest liberation day tariffs are only around 11 months old at this point.

mejutoco 10 hours ago | parent [-]

My source was:

``` The government has collected perhaps $180bn in IEEPA tariffs. Over the past year 1,800 companies—including Goodyear, a tyre-maker, and Costco, a retailer—have filed lawsuits to protect their right to a refund should the Supreme Court overturn them. They are now owed this money, equivalent to roughly 5% of the profits companies generated in America last year, or 0.6% of GDP—plus interest, compounded daily at an annual rate of 6-7%. ```

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/02/26/a...

loeg an hour ago | parent [-]

Interesting! Seems generous.

superxpro12 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The rest is financed by debt. The theft-class stole the rest from the govt thru debt, and expect the rest of us and the following generations to deal with the fallout while they sit on top of their obscene gobs of cash insulated from the fire they created.

outside2344 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The dude is a moron: to think there was any thought behind this is to be insane.

lokar a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Friends? America has no friends, only client states.

lokar a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'm serious. The Trump/MAGA view of foreign policy is that the US sits at the top, we owe friendship to no one. We engage with other nations transactionally, zero sum, with the US always getting more.

kubelsmieci a day ago | parent | next [-]

Don't antropomorfize countries. Countries can't have friends. There are only common interests. Or opposite.

Dylan16807 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Countries act on people's emotions. Friends and enemies are a pretty good description of a lot of international politics, much better than a dispassionate analysis of interests.

davedx a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How about people?

lokar a day ago | parent [-]

I think it's legitimately hard to say. Most Americans know very little about international affairs, and care even less. I think interpreting broad opinion surveys can be fraught.

So, who do you count? everyone? only the informed? only people with strong views? Or do you assume people support the views and actions of the people they voted for?

lokar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I said "Trump/MAGA", which is the person and controlling faction in US politics

epolanski a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This isn't the Trump/MAGA foreign policy, american exceptionalism is a century old and only gotten stronger. If anything MAGA is the full blown expression of this phenomenon.

The difference was that in the past US understood that you "rule" better when you surround yourself with enemies.

Now the policy is to dictate conditions left and right.

lokar a day ago | parent [-]

From the 2nd half of the 20th century until Trump there was the view that the US lead a large group of "western" democracies (in the sense that Japan is "western") in a loose coalition that was NOT zero sum. The US provided a lot of benefits to others, this collaboration produced an overall surplus[1], which the US got a large share of.

The new view seems to be based on a zero sum, transactional view of international affairs. In this mode every interaction must clearly benefit the US more than any other participant. We have to clearly "win" every time.

[1] and this is not even counting 2nd order "surplus" from things like no longer having to fight world wars.

rayiner 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The “western democracy” thing was always a stupid republican excuse to justify bankrupting the U.S. with foreign wars.

rayiner 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s always been the U.S. view of foreign policy. MAGA is just honest about it.

hcknwscommenter 16 hours ago | parent [-]

You may be right, but the honesty has destroyed an insane amount of good will and privilege that the US previously enjoyed (deservedly or not). To throw that all away for literally no benefit is . . . not good.

rayiner 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The U.S. never had any good will abroad, certainly not in my lifetime.

hunterpayne 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Countries don't have friends, they have interests. Welcome to geopolitics, first day huh...

thinkcontext a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The $130B is only part of the economic costs of the tariffs. Many companies and people changed their buying behavior, either paying more to a domestic company or maybe a company in a country with a lower tariff rate or changed their behavior to not require an item all together. We've also heard about small companies that have gone out of business.

I'm not an economist but I assume economists are writing papers about this kind of thing to estimate the effects.

ks2048 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> they planned to fix this hole with $100B?!

No one is or ever was planning on fixing any "holes".

Trump is drilling holes all over the boat and taking what he can.

After he's dead, others will have to deal with the sinking ship.

SlightlyLeftPad 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That $130B will pay for 4 months of the Iran war with a current run rate of <checks clipboard> $1B per day.

We’re definitely not going to get even a reduction in healthcare costs any time soon.

userbinator 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

and from all of this they got only $130B ?

I wonder if your thoughts would be any different if they managed to get enough to actually pay off the deficit?

arrosenberg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The point is to bankrupt the country so the robber barons can buy up all the assets for pennies on the dollar.

bigmadshoe 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The purpose of the tariffs was to strong-arm countries into unfair trade deals, not to collect revenue

dragonwriter 15 hours ago | parent [-]

The purpose of the tariffs was to appeal to the part of the domestic constituency that has belief in protectionist policies as a good in and of themselves rather than a means to an ends, not to achieve some direct material policy outcome outside of the scope of political enthusiasm.

perfectstorm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this reminds me of the Indian government's (read Modi's) demonetization efforts of 2016 which caused 80+ deaths and huge headaches for the common people. In the end, more than 99.3% of the demonetized money came back in circulation. Elect a clown, expect a circus. true for the oldest democracy in the world and also true for the largest democracy.

rayiner 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The point of tariffs is to discourage foreign goods from entering the U.S. market. Has anyone ever read a book?

Sparkle-san 15 hours ago | parent [-]

That approach may need to be reexamined as it didn't appear to work.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4872657-us-goods-trade-defi...

usefulcat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had the same thought, but really I think a lot of it is just spectacle for his more gullible followers.

I mean, FFS--we have a nominally Republican candidate who campaigned on raising taxes and was elected anyway!

You'd have to be pretty gullible to think that raising taxes on imported goods won't result in price hikes at the checkout counter.

unyttigfjelltol 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, Trump manufactured negotiating leverage out of thin air— nothing, really. He extracted concessions on something like a bluff. Plus, didn’t he also extract a budget that in retrospect wasn’t appropriate had the tariff revenue been removed?

hcknwscommenter 16 hours ago | parent [-]

The budget wasn't appropriate regardless of tariffs. And OP's point is that 130B is a tiny number that no where near makes up for the loss in tax revenue from the very very stupid "OBBB".

levzettelin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Astronomical tariffs [...] and from all of this they got only $130B ?

Which is it? A number can't be small and large at the same time.

californical a day ago | parent | next [-]

To steel-man their sentence, it’s a large number to extract from US citizens, nearly $500/person. But it’s a small number in terms of government deficit and current spending

Dylan16807 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The percents were huge. The income was comparatively useless.

arunabha a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's clear that there was no reasoned thought behind the tariff push. Tariffs can work if implemented in a principled way and coupled with a complementary industrial policy to develop critical sectors of the economy.

Instead, we had a completely chaotic implementation of tariffs which seemed to be completely at the whim of Trump with zero supportive industrial policy. So much so that the term 'Taco' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out was coined to describe Trump's approach.

The charitable explanation is that Trump had no plan and was making it up as he went along. The less charitable explanation is that the chaos was an intentional feature to enable a quid pro quo of favourable policy in exchange for under the table payments via crypto or 'investments' in his family's various businesses.

When you couple completely illegal application of a supposed 'emergency' to invoke tariffs with a chaotic, whim based implementation, is there any wonder that they failed?

everforward a day ago | parent [-]

The studies I’ve seen seem to indicate that tariffs can work but are like running with scissors.

The artificially reduced competition will spur buying domestic products, but can also make domestic producers complacent. They don’t develop new features because they have an almost captive audience, until foreign producers advance enough that people will pay the tariff premium for better foreign products.

Then it’s a catch-22. Domestic producers are behind on technology so killing the tariffs will bankrupt them, but raising the tariffs only leans into their complacency.

Saline9515 17 hours ago | parent [-]

There are better ways than tariffs. For instance, you can increase VAT and use the proceeds to decrease taxes on work, or cut taxes for specific sectors. This way your economy is more competitive internationally, while avoiding the distorsions of tariffs.

Tariffs can also be footguns as they increase costs on imports for upstream supplies, making downstream local producers less competitive. VAT is much better for this as it is refunded when you export.

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
tootie a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's unbelievable he's still given any semblance of credence for anything he does. Trump is just palpably stupid. He is bad at absorbing information, he is bad at analytical thinking, he is impatient, vain and rash. Aside from his tenuous legal justification, he never once publicly expressed even a fundamental understanding of the basic mechanics of tariff collection nor what balance of trade actually means. You'd constantly see his proxies on TV just put words in his mouth to bend his foolish policy into some coherent. And we're seeing it again with the attack on Iran. No strategy, no achievable objectives, no comprehension of basic facts on the ground. He's really really really just stupid.

2snakes 15 hours ago | parent [-]

It is a different kind of intelligence: System 1 instead of System 2. I guess you could call it startup style.

satvikpendem a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Trump brags in Oval Office that his billionaire pals made a killing in stocks after he pulled the plug on tariffs"

> “He made $2.5 billion, and he made $900 million! That’s not bad!” Trump said, pointing to financial investor Charles Schwab and then NASCAR team owner Roger Penske.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-brags-oval-office-billionair...

dude250711 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> All the propaganda and extortionist language about how all countries will pay up to USA.

Sounds a bit like Brexit.

kevin_thibedeau 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hedging in case Argentina might need another bailout.

maxlin 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

-They only got 130B -They planned to fix all this with 100B?

I see what you did there. 70B eh? They only got 50B. A paltry 20B?

The real number though, was gotten in a relatively short time. And now replacement tariffs are on the way. And many companies have re-thought of manufacturing outside US with the higher tariffs always being the possibility in the future too.

hcknwscommenter 16 hours ago | parent [-]

If the OP had (incorrectly) rounded 130B to 200B, OP's point would have still been perfectly understandable and correct. Your odd quibble about rounding completely misses the point. Whooosh.

guywithahat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean 130 billion is a significant amount of money, and it's more remarkable given the tax is unnoticeable to the average consumer and primarily impacted foreign manufacturers (either forcing them to move to the US or more friendly countries). The deficit wasn't built in two years and I don't think it could be solved in two years either.

loeg 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's more remarkable given the tax is unnoticeable to the average consumer

The idea that consumers don't notice higher prices is wild.

> and primarily impacted foreign manufacturers

Also not true?

bbshfishe 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

belter 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

bbshfishe 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]