close
close

Apre-salomemanzo

Breaking: Beyond Headlines!

Trump’s tariff threats unlikely to cause other countries to change their policies
aecifo

Trump’s tariff threats unlikely to cause other countries to change their policies

10 percent or 20 percent or non-existent? Donald Trump’s campaign narrative appears to be one of selectively limited government; possibly appoint Elon Musk as “Secretary of Cost Reduction” (more on this) here) while promoting an unknown pricing level, which some of his lackeys claim will not actually happen, but will simply be used to convince other countries to reduce their trade restrictions on us.

At different times, Trump has promoted a general customs duty of 10%, then a duty of 20%, including 60% on Chinese products. Now, in the last two weeks, he has floated the idea of ​​scrapping the income tax altogether in favor of tariffs, or possibly a value-added tax. “Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,” he said recently at a Michigan town hall.

But this economic illiteracy has somehow found supporters, mostly in the form of Trump surrogates, arguing that the threat of tariffs would be sufficient flexibility and that actual tariffs would not be not really necessary.

First, it’s a huge risk for voters to take. Second, that’s not really how things have been done in the past.

“The idea that the White House can use import restrictions to influence the policies of foreign governments is not entirely unprecedented,” he added. writing Scott Lincicome for The Atlantic. He credits Trump’s 2019 threat — to tax Mexican imports at 10% — for winning cooperation on illegal immigration. Yet the idea that the threat of tariffs is hugely successful in getting other countries to change their policies is plain wrong:

In a complete analysis of every U.S. unfair trade investigation between 1975 and 1993 – 91 cases targeting foreign discrimination against U.S. goods, services and intellectual property – Kimberly Ann Elliott and Thomas O. Bayard found that U.S. efforts to pressure foreign countries for them to open their markets have been crowned with success. less than half the time. The authors’ definition of “success” was generous to U.S. officials: it might include only partial achievement of U.S. goals and result in no real trade liberalization. Even then, victories occurred mainly when a single country was dependent on the US market – a situation that only applies to a few countries today – and for a short period in the mid-1980s, when the United States had much greater economic weight in the world. markets than today.

Also, adds Lincicome: “No country has lowered its tariffs on U.S. products in response to tariffs imposed, or simply threatened, under the Trump administration, and most of those U.S. tariffs remain in effect today .” And the threat of tariffs itself imposes substantial costs; How can businesses plan for the future when this type of uncertainty arises? When the CEO can decide, on a whim, to radically change the costs of doing business?

Musk’s ‘Illegal Lottery Scheme’: The Philadelphia district attorney is ask a judge to rule Musk’s $1 million get-out-the-vote giveaway scheme illegal.

“The America PAC and Musk are urging citizens of Philadelphia – and other members of the Commonwealth (and other swing states in upcoming elections) – to give up their personally identifiable information and make a political commitment in exchange a chance to win $1 million,” it reads. THE civil suit. “It’s a lottery. And it’s definitely an illegal lottery.”

Since mid-October, Musk has been trying to use his vast personal fortune to help Trump win the Swing States; he asked registered voters to sign a petition pledging support for the U.S. Constitution, including the First and Second Amendments.

Pennsylvania law apparently only allows lotteries to be “run and administered by the state,” so Musk’s creative incentives to vote are apparently not appreciated. Under federal law, anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either to register to vote or to vote” commits a crime. Federal law further specifies that this includes “anything of monetary value, including cash, alcohol, lottery odds, and employee benefits such as food stamps.”

Interestingly, Musk isn’t technically paying anyone to vote or register to vote; he creates a giveaway reserved exclusively for registered voters who sign his petition. It remains an open question whether Pennsylvania courts will declare his behavior illegal.


Miami Scenes: Nicotine freedom spotted at Hereticon, an event hosted by venture capital firm Founders Fund.

MiamiMiami
Nicotine galore (Liz Wolfe)

QUICK SHOTS

  • “While the election outcome is still far from clear, mortgage and bond markets are beginning to price in the growing likelihood that Trump will win on November 5 and implement inflationary policies on tariffs and immigration “, reports Bloomberg. “He can even weaken the Federal Reservethe country’s central bank which fights against inflation. » (As for that last part, girls can dream!)
  • Oh no, Sohrab Ahmari wrote about ayahuasca.
  • On anchor Abby Phillips’ CNN show, former MSNBC anchor Mehdi Hasan suggested that conservative pundit Ryan Girdusky was a Nazi; when discussing something Hamas-related, Hasan said he was Palestinian and Girdusky joked, “I hope your pager doesn’t go off.” Girdusky was banned from the network (although Hasan, who implied he was a Nazi, was not), and Phillips posted a long statement of apologyand it was quite a thing.
  • Earlier this month, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos blocked the newspaper’s support for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris; so the editorial board did not approve anyone. As a result, a tsunami of subscribers – 200,000, or 8 percent of the paper’s paid circulation – canceled their plans.
  • Verifying the Rogan-Harris negotiations:
  • Latinx has always been a stupid term: