Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 3, 2025
White House Lacks Financial Literacy – ‘Tariffs’ Show

Presidential Message on National Financial Literacy Month, 2025 – The White House, Apr 1 2025

The foundation of American economic prosperity is a society empowered with the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions to achieve the American Dream. …

I welcome that message.

Teaching financial literacy must start at the top. The members of the Trump administration obviously lack the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions.

It is the only possible explanation for how they came up with these numbers:


bigger

China does not have a 67% tariff on U.S. goods (it's 7.3%). The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it's 5.2%). The numbers are bollocks.

So where do they come from? The official explanation from the U.S. Trade Representative is here. Its baloney:

James Surowiecki @JamesSurowiecki – 0:22 UTC · Apr 3, 2025

Just figured out where these fake tariff rates come from. They didn't actually calculate tariff rates + non-tariff barriers, as they say they did. Instead, for every country, they just took our trade deficit with that country and divided it by the country's exports to us.

So we have a $17.9 billion trade deficit with Indonesia. Its exports to us are $28 billion. $17.9/$28 = 64%, which Trump claims is the tariff rate Indonesia charges us. What extraordinary nonsense this is.

Even given that it's Trump, I cannot believe they said "We'll just divide the trade deficit by imports and tell people that's the tariff rate." And then they decided to set our tariffs by just cutting that totally made-up rate in half! This is so dumb and deceptive.

.. it's actually worse than I thought: in calculating the tariff rate, Trump's people only used the trade deficit in goods. So even though we run a trade surplus in services with the world, those exports don't count as far as Trump is concerned.

The last point is a major one, for China, but especially for the EU :

EU-US trade in goods and services reached an impressive €1.6 trillion in 2023. This means that every day, €4.4 billion worth of goods and services cross the Atlantic between the EU and the US.

The total bilateral trade in goods reached €851 billion in 2023. The EU exported €503 billion of goods to the US market, while importing €347 billion; this resulted in a goods trade surplus of €157 billion for the EU.

Total bilateral trade in services between the EU and the US was worth €746 billion in 2023. The EU exported €319 billion of services to the US, while importing €427 billion from the US; this resulted in a services trade deficit of €109 billion for the EU.

EU-US goods and services trade is balanced: the difference between EU exports to the US and US exports to the EU stood at €48 billion in 2023; the equivalent of just 3% of the total trade between the EU and the US.

Despite that Trump has decreed a 20% on all goods from the EU. The natural countermeasure from the EU will be to put a 20+% tariff on all import of U.S. services.

Trump also decreed a minimum 10% tariff on imports from every country. Products made by the penguins of the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Islands in the Antarctic will now come with a 10% surcharge.


bigger

There is really no economic reasoning behind these numbers.

Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand – 4:16 AM · Apr 3, 2025

To illustrate just how nonsensically these tariffs were calculated, take the example of Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in Africa with just $2.4 billion in annual GDP, which is being struck with a 50% tariff rate under the Trump plan, the highest rate among all countries on the list.

As a matter of fact Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), applies the common external tariff structure established by this regional trade bloc.

So since the tariffs charged by these 5 countries on U.S. products are exactly the same, they must all be struck with a 50% tariff rate by the U.S., right? Not at all: South Africa is getting 30%, Namibia 21%, Botswana 37% and Eswatini just 10%, the lowest rate possible among all countries.

Looking at Lesotho specifically, every year the U.S. imports approximately $236 million in goods from Lesotho (primarily diamonds, textiles and apparel) while exporting only about $7 million worth of goods to Lesotho (https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/LSO/Year/2022/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/by-country).

Why do they export so little? Again this is an extremely poor country where 56.2% of the population lives with less than $3.65 a day (https://databankfiles.worldbank.org/public/…), i.e. $1,300 a year. They simply can't afford U.S. products, no-one is going to buy an iPhone or a Tesla on that sort of income…

The way the tariffs are ACTUALLY calculated appears to be based on a simplistic and economically senseless formula: you take the trade deficit the U.S. has with a country, divide it by that country's exports to the U.S and declare this – falsely – "the tariff they charge on the U.S."

And then as Trump did in his speech last night, you magnanimously declare that you'll only "reciprocate" by charging half that "tariff" on them.

As such, for Lesotho, the calculation goes like this: ($236M – $7M)/$235M = 97%. That's the "tariff" Lesotho is deemed to charge this U.S. and half of that, i.e. roughly 50% is what the U.S. "reciprocates" with.

It's extremely easy to see why this makes no sense at all.

Lesotho has a comparative advantage over the U.S. as it can dig up and sell diamonds. But it lacks the purchasing power to buy U.S. goods and services. The calculations by the Trump administration ignore those basic facts.

No tariffs were by the way introduced against Belarus, Russia and North Korea. This because of sanction, the U.S. has allegedly no trade relation with them. (Other than buying enriched Uranium for its nuclear power stations?)

Did the Trump administration anticipate how this nonsense will explode in its face?

It is Smoot-Hawley writ large.

Comments

Trump anticipating nonsense exploding in his face ?
of course no !
He’s a show runner. he’s never wrong.

Posted by: W | Apr 3 2025 9:01 utc | 1

Hi
I’m in the UK and just bought piston rings from a Greek company.
The EU charged me 30 euro tax and the UK another 30 pounds import duty.
So piston rings could have cost me 70 pounds actually cost 120 pounds roughly.
Trumps logic is right. We have been forced into globalization but ripped off in the process.
Drinks all round on me!
Cheers Oldengineer

Posted by: Oldengineer | Apr 3 2025 9:01 utc | 2

Maybe we really need that war.
Lunacy rules.
God help us.

Posted by: g wiltek | Apr 3 2025 9:05 utc | 3

Well it looks like the shit has eventually hit the fan. Hang on and stay down.

Posted by: drezzo | Apr 3 2025 9:11 utc | 4

I don’t agree with you on this.
We all have to make a choice and America (not Trump per se) has made theirs.
I despise the EU more than I do Trump. They were all happy to go along with the global slaughter and financial jiggery for decades. Now that the jackal has turned on them they have started crying.
And you seem to be going along with this crying.
Where were all these concerns when the EU was happy to go along with Biden/Obama etc?
It’s reverting back to what it always was: the Bear, the Eagle and the Dragon. Plus Israel of course in the background.
What a time to be alive if anything.
Good luck with all of these predictions below and above the line but let’s see what happens next…

Posted by: Skeletor | Apr 3 2025 9:14 utc | 5

Tariffs on an iceberg with population of penguins?
https://t.me/Middle_East_Spectator/17039

Posted by: Mary | Apr 3 2025 9:16 utc | 6

If they are implemented, these tariffs could be one of the earliest expressions of a US retreat from much of the world. Where can Lesotho turn? Hmmm, China and Russia?

Posted by: Squeeth | Apr 3 2025 9:29 utc | 7

Hard to believe that the Trump administration doesnt know the economic impact these tariffs will have. It will tank the market, yes, which means interest rates will have to fall at some point. Which means Trump gets to refinance the debt, from which he probably hopes to kickstart the economy. Or at least the economic numbers. The economic downturn, which he knows is coming anyways, might be kind of a controlled demolition. Do it now and get it out of the way. The dollar has been falling since he took office, dropping fast since the tariffs were anounced. Bessents commentary, quite calmly, that the economy will take a hit because of the tariffs, might be a hint that they know about the effect this has on markets. He talked about the 10 year treasury a lot, and that seems to be going into the direction he anticipated as well. All in all, they might be able to force a reaction of the federal reserve.
So, the tariffs have bean calculated by kabuki measures, agreed. But the effects on markets, interest rates and currency seem to go into the direction that was inteded by the administration.

Posted by: calixtus | Apr 3 2025 9:30 utc | 8

Phew! New Zealand escaped the protectionism somehow…

Posted by: Gerry Bell | Apr 3 2025 9:33 utc | 9

B…
I love ya.
But read the room. Some of us advocate the abolition of the US Federal Government. Trump is trying to occupy middle ground here. He says “Give me a chance, I can fix this.”
Is he correct? Can he fix America? I won’t lose anything by giving him a chance.

Posted by: MaryPeck | Apr 3 2025 9:33 utc | 10

Take care of your health ‘b’ –
As you note – “The numbers are bollocks.”
So one might ask – What is the latently strategic motive behind these bollocky figures? If there is one.

Posted by: Don Firineach | Apr 3 2025 9:36 utc | 11

“The natural countermeasure from the EU will be to put a 20+% tariff on all import of U.S. services.”
It depends on how enslaved EU unelected leadership is. They could try to hurt China together, Eu can also increase tariffs for them. EU was extremely happy when NS was blown up, no one can say their behavior is natural. So far only China has spoken and they “vowed retaliation” if the tariffs are maintained, according to Reuters.
The EU charged me 30 euro tax and the UK another 30 pounds import duty.
@Posted by: Oldengineer | Apr 3 2025 9:01 utc | 2
Move back into EU or make your own pistons. What makes you so superior that you don’t want to pay taxes?

Posted by: rk | Apr 3 2025 9:36 utc | 12

So, the tariffs have bean calculated by kabuki measures, agreed. But the effects on markets, interest rates and currency seem to go into the direction that was intended by the administration.
Posted by: calixtus | Apr 3 2025 9:30 utc | 8
Interesting. A response to post #11- Ta. Dollar down; 10 yr down; market down.

Posted by: Don Firineach | Apr 3 2025 9:43 utc | 13

A few days ago, curious, I asked AI to calculate Chinese tariffs plus other import taxes (VAT etc) on US cars before Trump’s first round of tariffs in 2018. The answer varied depending on vehicle horsepower but basically it came out at 48% on the low end and 110% on the high end – trucks. Also, as Trump mentioned, they factored in currency manipulation.
An industrial programmer in Germany told me that Mercedes Benz makes more money from cars made and sold in China than from cars made and sold in Europe & the West. Why do they build in China? Chinese tariffs make it necessary just as US tariffs will and why about $5 trillion has already been committed for new plant construction.
So the 67% figure for China may not be as outlandish as you portray and is probably not calculated in the slapdash way you imagine.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/04/03/treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-outlines-details-of-president-trump-tariff-plan/
Features a 10-minute rapid fire interview with SecTreas Bessent; the Trump 2.0 trade and finance team is pretty impressive even if some of the rest of the Cabinet is more iffy.

Posted by: Scorpion | Apr 3 2025 9:43 utc | 14

lol
And i mean FUCKING LOL!
Anyway, back in the real world; the West is committing a genocide, an ongoing genocide, continuing with their NATO-Nazi army in Ukraine, and putting alQaeda head-chopping terorrist as head of state in Syria.
So nobody should be giving any of these motherfuckers the slightest bit of respect in any way whatsoever.
But that’s just my opinion.

Posted by: Keith | Apr 3 2025 9:49 utc | 15

Watch US President Donald Trump’s Full ‘Liberation Day’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcoAYkb6gYg
“…April 2, 2025 will be forever remembered as the day American industry was reborn. Today, America’s destiny was reborn.
Today, America’s destiny was reclaimed on the day we began to make America wealthy again.
For decades our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.
Canada, by the way…”
‘Shine Perishing Republic…’

Posted by: John Gilberts | Apr 3 2025 9:50 utc | 16

It depends on how enslaved EU unelected leadership is. They could try to hurt China together, Eu can also increase tariffs for them. EU was extremely happy when NS was blown up, no one can say their behavior is natural. So far only China has spoken and they “vowed retaliation” if the tariffs are maintained, according to Reuters.
@Posted by: Oldengineer | Apr 3 2025 9:01 utc | 2
Agree, might it be that the overall goal is not to make America great again, more like Crush China?
If so, large EU tariff on the Chinese would further that ambition.

Posted by: Night Tripper | Apr 3 2025 9:56 utc | 17

https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/04/03/will-the-trump-shock-prove-as-momentous-as-the-nixon-shock-unherd-op-ed-on-bbc-tv/
Concludes:
Nevertheless, that globalisation recedes does not mean that autarky is possible. The Trump Shock is pushing us into a Bisected Planet, one part of it comprising vassal countries that have yielded to the Trump Plan and a second part where the BRICS experiment is allowed to take its course…rather than focusing too much on the character of the man in the White House, we would do well to recall that the Nixon Shock was much more important than Nixon. If Nixon reshaped the world once, leaving it nastier and more unbalanced, Trump can certainly do it again.

Posted by: JB | Apr 3 2025 9:58 utc | 18

Posted by: calixtus | Apr 3 2025 9:30 utc | 8
Not really going as expected.
AFAIK a falling dollar was not in Trump mind.
Granted a falling dollar will help exports but will add to tariffs in imports.

Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 10:06 utc | 19

Scott Bessent claims tariffs for Russia not needed as allegedly there is no trade.
Well, this may actually be a cover story. There wasn’t trade earlier, but considering all the various deals in the background, there WILL be more trade and real reason for not including in tariff list is because US will buy minerals and resources from Russia. They might even use gold as payments, considering the massive imports of gold by US banks and government recently.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 3 2025 10:10 utc | 20

The Looming Global Financial Crisis: Time To Rethink Development & Democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5dQ23BcKJE
Prof Manfred Bienefeld & Prof Radhika Desai at the LSE

Posted by: John Gilberts | Apr 3 2025 10:11 utc | 21

Who gets the money from those tariffs? Straight into the coffers of the “Federal reserve” (not federal, not a reserve), meaning straight to Blackrock, I assume?

Posted by: Jack M | Apr 3 2025 10:12 utc | 22

By the way, Kirill Dmitriev, the CEO of Russian direct investment fund is in Washington DC today. Do people think they are talking about golfing?
Make your own conclusions based on what we already heard of US investment funds and companies operating in Russia.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 3 2025 10:13 utc | 23

The members of the Trump administration obviously lack the knowledge and tools to make informed financial decisions.
Posted by b on April 3, 2025 at 8:53 UTC | Permalink

The people that approved the tariff follies think that they have the market in the bag. Their quants have been running simulations since before Trump was selected.
Looking at the tape you can almost see the steam rising off the matching engines and dark pools.
The masters of the universe have made a daring wager. Against chaos where calculation goes askew.
The MAGAs have failed their lessons and humility is a hard teacher.
But wait! There is more.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 10:13 utc | 24

The people that approved the tariff follies think that they have the market in the bag.
Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 10:13 utc | 24
100% – that’s exactly how they think.

Posted by: Night Tripper | Apr 3 2025 10:16 utc | 25

@Gerry Bell | Apr 3 2025 9:33 utc | 9
You say New Zealand escaped protectionism
NZ is apparently where the British Elites may escape if WW3 seems to break out. Britain started a direct airline to Australia with the Ukraine conflict.
I felt that they would probably not give hints about the ‘Hobbit’ nation where Tolkiens work was filmed.

Posted by: petergrfstrm | Apr 3 2025 10:17 utc | 26

Why do you bother with finance commentary?
You are barely able to enunciate worthwhile military commentary.
You should feel lucky to be in the USA where imbeciles like you can talk shit without being taken to gaol

Posted by: Stu | Apr 3 2025 10:24 utc | 27

Hi B,
you claimed that “The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%)”. Which is not correct, at least not for Germany. The tariff itself is around 5% but on top of that comes the “Einfuhrumsatzsteuer”, the import sales tax, which is another 19%. Therefor importing US goods has a tax of around 24%. The US also has a sales tax but that is a local tax which is difficult to compare. For specific goods the import tariff + tax can be much higher that the 24%.

Posted by: Tuk | Apr 3 2025 10:26 utc | 28

No tariffs were by the way introduced against Belarus, Russia and North Korea. This because of sanction, the U.S. has allegedly no trade relation with them. (Other than buying enriched Uranium for its nuclear power stations?)
Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand – 4:16 AM · Apr 3, 2025
The US purchased more than $1 Billion worth of fetiliser alone from Russia in 2024, in addition to lots of bits and pieces. A lot more than Lesotho, Botswana and Eswatini (Swaziland) combined.

Posted by: Menz | Apr 3 2025 10:27 utc | 29

I won’t lose anything by giving him a chance.
Posted by: MaryPeck | Apr 3 2025 9:33 utc | 10

Divide by zero ==> NaN.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 10:28 utc | 30

My Lebanese neighbours across the road have traded their very expensive Mercedes Benz for a Chinese EV, they were pee’ed off with the German support of the geneociders and I applaud the new car owners for it.
However, the Chinese EV is orange in colour and every time I look out of my front window it reminds me of that fat f*cker in charge of the USA.

Posted by: Menz | Apr 3 2025 10:39 utc | 31

Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 10:06 utc | 19
Go look it up, many instances in the last 12 months were Trump called for a weaker dollar.

Posted by: calixtus | Apr 3 2025 10:41 utc | 32

you claimed that “The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%)”. Which is not correct, at least not for Germany. The tariff itself is around 5% but on top of that comes the “Einfuhrumsatzsteuer”, the import sales tax, which is another 19%. Therefor importing US goods has a tax of around 24%. The US also has a sales tax but that is a local tax which is difficult to compare. For specific goods the import tariff + tax can be much higher that the 24%.
The 19% are VAT. It is payed by consumers for imported as well as not imported goods and services. It is thus like a (local) sales tax in the U.S. It has nothing to do with trade.

Posted by: b | Apr 3 2025 10:41 utc | 33

you claimed that “The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%)”. Which is not correct, at least not for Germany. The tariff itself is around 5% but on top of that comes the “Einfuhrumsatzsteuer”, the import sales tax, which is another 19%. Therefor importing US goods has a tax of around 24%. The US also has a sales tax but that is a local tax which is difficult to compare. For specific goods the import tariff + tax can be much higher that the 24%.
Posted by: Tuk | Apr 3 2025 10:26 utc | 28
You are wrong.
Vat on (final customer import) just balances regular vat on any equivalent sale.
Otherwise it would be “cheaper” to buy direct as it would be tax free.
As for B’s idea of tariffs on services, if things are to split then it could be an opening salvo, but the family atomics would be to denounce all agreements on IP
The current wealth extraction model is based on intellectual property , that was the main concession by china to enter the world markets, no more IP pirating.

Posted by: Newbie | Apr 3 2025 10:56 utc | 34

no more IP pirating.
Posted by: Newbie | Apr 3 2025 10:56 utc | 34

Acktually: We won’t pirate yours if you don’t pirate ours.
The calculus changes according to the size of the holdings of the competitor.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:02 utc | 35

Lesotho- most of the textiles and apparel (if not all of it) is made by Chinese owned companies using AGOA to take advantage of preferential rates. The Basotho’s are simply the factory workers whilst the Chinese live on the South Africa side of the border after the Basotho’s one year rioted due to the sweatshop labour conditions.

Posted by: Down South | Apr 3 2025 11:02 utc | 36

Orange man is a Con man.

Posted by: Andrew | Apr 3 2025 11:04 utc | 37

My own view is that the US is bankrupt (Debt 200% plus of GDP) and Trump was allowed the come to power due to his own experience of debt re-organisation. (12 bankruptcies) . The haste in their actions is due to the gravity of the actual debt situation. Expect more protectionism as they try to re-organise and re-orient the economy. Nothing will change immediately. The plan provides for a twenty time frame to get where they want to be.

Posted by: Down South | Apr 3 2025 11:09 utc | 38

I disagree with b on this issue.
I wrote a letter to my son (IT developer) and his friend who is a Chartered Accountant:
I am a alot older than you guys and, perhaps, I can see the ‘bigger picture’ a bit clearer [Canuck can be an arrogant prick at times, editor]; indulge me for a second to go through the history.
Paper currency-in the Yuan Dynasty under Kublai Khan circa 1270’s when Marco Polo (1)-the Venetian adventurer, merchant, general and of course, chronicler – was amazed as Kublai would give paper yuan currency in exchange to Chinese merchants for silver and gold .(2); in less than 100 years the paper Yuan was useless and China essentially bankrupt.
America went for the paper dollar in 1971 (thank you Vietnam!) when they closed their gold window (gold was $35 dollars an ounce then, now it is $3,100 (3) (4)) as France among other were trading Eurodollars for American gold bullion.
Fifty years later the US dollar, the reserve currency of the world is faltering , especially as the BRIC nations are building, successfully, a counter payment system.-what does the Chief Executive of the US do when the reserve currency status is crumbling, record Sovereign debt, held 30% held by foreigners,, domestic manufacturing companies dying on the vine along with a demographic morass (more older people less productive people) ?
Trump, IMO, reaches back to tariffs, that were originally were made in 1789 in the US, were the only source of government revenue. Teddy Roosevelt in the early 1900’s was a progressive and argued that tariffs were costing the ordinary people while the rich people were hardly scratched economically.-he was right.
Then came the 1913 income tax-a temporary measure (Ha ,ha) that would only tax the rich (another laugh)-thus tariffs were reduced but not eliminated.
Then come the Depression the tariffs were expanded again till the 1980’s, 90’s were they were put then at roughtly4-6% as Globalism (ie western Oligarchs using slave labour to increase profits, and left working class Westerners bereft) expanded all governments (as well as their censorship, authoritarianism-promoted Wokeism) which led to the bloated Western Bureaucracy today-which includes school teachers whom, for whatever reason, cannot properly educate our children.
By forcing companies to locate in the US to service their customers without tariffs it certainly will help to re establish many of the the ‘working class’, to ‘middle class”.
The article you supplied is right-tariffs are going to cause alot of uncertainty which kills all markets both materially and psychologically in the short term.
In the medium to long term it might re establish the American middle class-I doubt it-because the West is so messed up–but it is a valiant and intelligent gambit.”
1. Marco Polo was indeed fascinated by the use of paper money in China during Kublai Khan’s reign, a system he described as circulating like gold or silver, and he was one of the first Europeans to witness this invention.
Marco Polo’s Writings:
Marco Polo documented his travels and observations in his book, “The Travels of Marco Polo,” which helped to spread knowledge of this new form of currency to Europe.
Initial Skepticism:
Europeans initially found the idea of paper money so preposterous that they questioned the credibility of Polo’s accounts of his travels.
The Invention of Money | The New Yorker
Jul 29, 2019 — When the Venetian merchant Marco Polo got to China, in the latter part of the thirteenth century, he saw many wonders—…
The New Yorker
How Chinese mulberry bark paved the way for paper money
Sep 10, 2017 — The Great Khan announces that officially stamped mulberry bark is money – and lo, let it be done. Money it is. The gen…
BBC
Marco Polo Describes the Issue of Paper Money in the Mongol …
Marco Polo described the use of paper currency throughout Khubilai Khan’s Yuan dynasty: “With these pieces of paper, made as I hav…
History of Information
2.Ayurbarwada Buyantu Khan, the successor to Kublai, completely ceased the production of coinage in favour of paper money and made it illegal to use coins for payment,
in 54 years, gold was 35 an ounce , now it is $3,100 an ounce ; what is the intersst rate on that with compounding yearly?
ChatGPT said:
To calculate the interest rate based on the compounding formula, we can use the formula for compound interest:
A=P(1+rn)ntA = P \left( 1 + \frac{r}{n} \right)^{nt}A=P(1+nr​)nt
Where:
AAA is the final amount (future value) = $3,100
PPP is the initial amount (present value) = $35
rrr is the annual interest rate (which we are solving for)
nnn is the number of times the interest is compounded per year = 1 (since it is compounded yearly)
ttt is the number of years = 54
Now, simplifying the formula for yearly compounding:
A=P(1+r)tA = P \left( 1 + r \right)^tA=P(1+r)t
Substitute the known values:
3,100=35(1+r)543,100 = 35 \left( 1 + r \right)^{54}3,100=35(1+r)54
To isolate rrr, first divide both sides by 35:
3,10035=(1+r)54\frac{3,100}{35} = \left( 1 + r \right)^{54}353,100​=(1+r)54 88.5714=(1+r)5488.5714 = \left( 1 + r \right)^{54}88.5714=(1+r)54
Next, take the 54th root of both sides:
(1+r)=(88.5714)154(1 + r) = \left( 88.5714 \right)^{\frac{1}{54}}(1+r)=(88.5714)541​
Calculating the 54th root:
1+r=1.06511 + r = 1.06511+r=1.0651
Now, subtract 1 from both sides:
r=0.0651r = 0.0651r=0.0651
Thus, the annual interest rate is approximately 6.51%.
This means the gold price increased at an average annual compounded interest rate of about 6.51% over the 54 years.”
4. This seems to low to me so I asked Lucas to confirm-he has a figure of 8.4% annually

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:11 utc | 39

……20 year time frame…..

Posted by: Down South | Apr 3 2025 11:11 utc | 40

“You claimed that “The EU does not have a 39% tariff on U.S. goods (it’s 5.2%)”. Which is not correct, at least not for Germany. The tariff itself is around 5% but on top of that comes the “Einfuhrumsatzsteuer”, the import sales tax, which is another 19%. Therefor importing US goods has a tax of around 24%. The US also has a sales tax but that is a local tax which is difficult to compare. For specific goods the import tariff + tax can be much higher that the 24%.”
Posted by: Tuk | Apr 3 2025 10:26 utc | 28
Than you for the reality check-you are quite correct

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:13 utc | 41

Posted by: calixtus | Apr 3 2025 9:30 utc | 8
“Not really going as expected.
AFAIK a falling dollar was not in Trump mind.
Granted a falling dollar will help exports but will add to tariffs in imports.”
Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 10:06 utc | 19
No Trump wants a weaker dollar so that the US is more competitive so s to increase exports and have less imports. That’s also why he was pisse at the Fed two weeks ago when they didn’t lower the short term interest rate-same idea..

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:15 utc | 42

“My own view is that the US is bankrupt (Debt 200% plus of GDP) and Trump was allowed the come to power due to his own experience of debt re-organization. (12 bankruptcies) . The haste in their actions is due to the gravity of the actual debt situation. Expect more protectionism as they try to re-organise and re-orient the economy. Nothing will change immediately. The plan provides for a twenty time frame to get where they want to be.”
Posted by: Down South | Apr 3 2025 11:09 utc | 38
Excellent analysis!

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:17 utc | 43

The posts by James Surowiecki and Arnaud Bertrand are disingeneous.
The calculation of the tariff change is not just the difference between imports and exports (the trade deficit) divided by imports, as they claim.
In fact the value of imports in the denominator is modulated by two more parameters that are country specific: (1) elasticity of imports with respect to import prices and (2) the passthrough from tariffs to import prices.
Surowiecki and Bertrand appear to be confused because they calculated the tariff change for countries where the parameters for elasticities and passthrough cancel each other.
The calculation of tariff change presented by Trump may still seem simplistic and even ad hoc BUT take into account that traditional models of international trade assume that trade between nations will balance in the mid- to long-term and that hasn’t happened for the USA so traditional models of international trade are wrong for the USA.

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 11:18 utc | 44

“No tariffs were by the way introduced against Belarus, Russia and North Korea. This because of sanction, the U.S. has allegedly no trade relation with them. (Other than buying enriched Uranium for its nuclear power stations?)”
Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand – 4:16 AM · Apr 3, 2025
The US purchased more than $1 Billion worth of fetiliser alone from Russia in 2024, in addition to lots of bits and pieces. A lot more than Lesotho, Botswana and Eswatini (Swaziland) combined.”
Posted by: Menz | Apr 3 2025 10:27 utc | 29
US purchases of Russian uranium in 2024:
“​In 2024, the U.S. government spent approximately $2.7 billion to bolster domestic uranium enrichment capabilities, aiming to reduce reliance on Russian uranium imports. ​
Wikipedia
However, under the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, certain exceptions allowed imports under specific circumstances, such as maintaining the stability of the U.S. nuclear sector. Centrus Energy, a leading U.S. uranium enrichment company, received a waiver to import low-enriched uranium from Russia for delivery to U.S. customers in 2024 and 2025. Historically, Centrus has relied on Russian uranium supplied by Tenex, a Russian government-owned company. In 2024, Tenex notified Centrus that its general license to export material to the U.S. had been rescinded, requiring specific export licenses for each shipment. ​
Wikipedia
While precise figures for total U.S. spending on Russian uranium imports in 2024 are not publicly available, the U.S. government’s investment in domestic uranium enrichment suggests a significant reduction in such imports.​”

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:21 utc | 45

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 11:18 utc | 45
Impeccable logic-thanks

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:23 utc | 46

he was pisse at the Fed two weeks ago when they didn’t lower the short term interest rate
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:15 utc | 42

Unironically, US debt is sold into the market. The Fed can ask but the price is set by the bid.
As you pointed out upthread Treasurys are unattractive as compared to gold. Increasingly so.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:25 utc | 47

so digging up diamonds for the US has given these people a life based on $3.65/day? who benefits the most from that exchange?
i think i understand those that seek to maintain the status quo.

Posted by: john mcgillen | Apr 3 2025 11:31 utc | 48

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:25 utc | 48
You are correct as far as you go-but what Trump wants is to do lower the value of the dollar which will fall if the Fed lowers the short term rate.
Long term rates are, of course, formed entirely by the market , unless of course, the Fed does Quantitative Easing.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:33 utc | 49

@petergrfstrm | Apr 3 2025 10:17 utc | 26
That must be it.

Posted by: Gerry Bell | Apr 3 2025 11:34 utc | 50

The posts by James Surowiecki and Arnaud Bertrand are disingeneous.
Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 11:18 utc | 45

From Bloomberg, who broke the story on the calculation method:

Trump’s formula included two other parameters — price elasticity of import demand and the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariffs. These were set at figures that effectively canceled each other out, together amounting to multiplying by one.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/04/tariffs-wont-solve-the-bigger-problems.html?

The elasticity figures are just a fudge factor to trip up rubes.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:37 utc | 51

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:37 utc | 52
corrected link ==> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-03/trump-s-reciprocal-tariff-formula-is-all-about-trade-deficits?

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:39 utc | 52

unless of course, the Fed does Quantitative Easing.
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:33 utc | 50

Even then the Market has the last word.
The buyer always sets the price.
When the Fed increases the monetary base they are selling.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:41 utc | 53

4. This seems to low to me so I asked Lucas to confirm-he has a figure of 8.4% annually
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:11 utc | 39
……20 year time frame…..
Posted by: Down South | Apr 3 2025 11:11 utc | 40
Your 6,5% value is close to the true inflation as seen in Boeing 747 , houses, big engineering, etc. basically prices double every 11 years
(Gold is probably overshooting as it did in early 1980s)
As for vat let me correct you , it applies to everything imported or domestic.
Let’s say you have national production at 101, it will be sold at 120
Say the us sells at 95, ater duty it’s same 101 and sold at 120
If it’s a final consumer buying he will have to pay same taxes as if it had been normally imported, final price 120
So yes, only 6% duty , the rest is just the regular way states ripoff consumers by adding 22% give or take 5 % depending on country
Vat is the main source of taxes on the eu

Posted by: Newbie | Apr 3 2025 11:43 utc | 54

“While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero”
Herr b, firstly, you need to be able to read critically. You may not agree with the approach, but the approach isn’t stupid.
Secondly, you may understand a couple of things in military matters, but this does not qualify you to talk bollocks about tariffs, of which you evidently understand les than zero. But yeah, a former commie understands how these things work, it’s the entire Trump administration and congress that are wrong.
Have some humility and some sense instead of spitting out crap to please the people you beg for money from.

Posted by: MW | Apr 3 2025 11:50 utc | 55

unless of course, the Fed does Quantitative Easing.”
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:33 utc | 50

“Even then the Market has the last word.
The buyer always sets the price.
When the Fed increases the monetary base they are selling.”
Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:41 utc | 54
No, that is not quite right..
When the Fed uses QE to buy long term Treasuries the Fed is buying not selling and the seller’s offer is the price; however, by creating ‘money from nothing” (‘Aliquid ex nihilo’) in QE the Fed is certainly diluting the value of the dollar that is what I think you are getting at.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:51 utc | 56

Down South post (Apr 3 2025 11:09 utc | 38) provides he primary motivation for the tariffs: the US’s annual federal deficit of ~$2T and unpayable total debt of ~$36T; tariffs will go into the Federal government’s coffers. The secondary motive, on which DJT campaigned, is threefold: increase US manufacturing (and self-reliance), increase US manufacturing employment, and provide an income stream for the Federal government that will replace personal income taxes (initially exchanging residents’ income tax burden with higher costs for consumer goods).
As a massive transfer of income to the US from every other bloc and nation, the scheme is best analyzed by disaggregating the projected gains to the US between government revenues and increased consumer costs, and likewise disaggregating projected losses in revenue to other governments (in reduced tariff, VAT, and corporate tax revenues) and the losses to non-US manufacturers and their employees. I have neither done nor seen such an analysis, but my intuition is that the eventual outcome is that the majority of the revenue deceases will accrue to non-US governments and to non-US workers, rather than to non-US manufacturers who can relocate factories to the US. The eventual gains will largely accrue to the US Federal government; it is doubtful that those gains will be passed on to US residents as income taxes are highly likely to remain.
An earlier commenter forecast tariff revenues going to the Federal Reserve, which is not how the system works. The Fed is the agent for US Treasury bond sales but is a privately owned entity that does not benefit from increased Treasury income.

Posted by: Ciaran | Apr 3 2025 11:52 utc | 57

seeing the kiev muppets whine about beeing on trumps list while russia is not is peak comedy.

Posted by: Justpassinby | Apr 3 2025 11:55 utc | 58

in QE the Fed is certainly diluting
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:51 utc | 57

As I posted @24

But wait! There is more.

Price discovery is just getting started.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:59 utc | 59

Looking at Trump’s 3rd grader vocabulary, perhaps he ought to start with actual literacy, before graduating to a financial one….

Posted by: Rubiconned | Apr 3 2025 12:07 utc | 60

Dear MOA please insert the word “Province” directly after the world “Taiwan” every time you use the world Taiwan to ‘change the naritive’. Because THEY use the word Taiwan as if it were a freestanding entity tricks listeners into thinking it’s a independent freestanding thing, but when the world Province is included the illusion of it being independent disappeares and that little linguistic trick can prevent World War Three.
Say “Taiwan Province”!
Thank you in advance.

Posted by: Hot Carl | Apr 3 2025 12:14 utc | 61

I imported a new guitar from the US to Spain where I currently live.
The price of the guitar was 1349 $ that was around 1200 € at that point of time, shipping was 120 $.
I had to pay tariff, VAT and handling fees and ended up paying around 1650 €. Wouldn’t have bought it, if I’d known that before.
That’s not far away from what Trump claims.
And don’t tell me, VAT is no tariff, it’s the state ripping me off.

Posted by: M.J. | Apr 3 2025 12:19 utc | 62

It’s a no brainer. Regardless of the various analysis here, the cross tariff situation as described in the Table does reflect the actual national(US) income effects of tariffs imposed on US goods and “services”. Negotiations have already begun to negotiate, to the extent possible, a mutually agreeable level playing field on imports/exports on a country by country basis.

Posted by: Jerr | Apr 3 2025 12:23 utc | 63

It will be interesting to see how the EU reacts. Last time they tried to do the Democrats bidding by taxing products from Republican states. It was both ignorant – pushing European companies to move to the US was a Biden policy too – and in denial of its own interest. Just like the US hopes that when this thing is over there will be more factories in the US Europe should implement policies that will make it more independent from the US. There are lots of opportunities for that in information technologies and weapons.
https://wimroffel.substack.com/p/how-to-react-to-trumps-tariffs

Posted by: Wim | Apr 3 2025 12:24 utc | 64

– Tariffs make EVERYONE poorer.

Posted by: WMG | Apr 3 2025 12:25 utc | 65

Addendum to my earlier post (#58):
If the primary purpose of the tariffs is to reduce US Federal deficits and total debt, the tariffs are best viewed as a major retrenchment in US empire building and acceptance of the inevitable loss of economic hegemony, and as a declaration of economic war primarily against Europe and China along with a calculated acceptance of collateral damage to Japan and South Korea and, surprisingly, to the US MIC’s export sales. The acceptance of collateral damage to Japan and South Korea is not without precedent, if one recalls the US’s initiation of the Asian stock market collapse of 1990, which was precipitated by Thai baht currency manipulation and resulted in a 50% reduction in the Nikkei Index.

Posted by: Ciaran | Apr 3 2025 12:28 utc | 66

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 11:18 utc | 45
It doesn’t exists that models are wrong for USA.
Reality is that, if not for the existence more or less forced of usd as the reserve currency the US wouldn’t be able to run the massive deficit in the trade balance.

Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 12:32 utc | 67

@ M.J. | Apr 3 2025 12:19 utc | 63
VAT is no tariff. It’s the state ripping you off via a tax on end-user purchases, regardless of whether you buy domestic or foreign production.

Posted by: I forgot | Apr 3 2025 12:33 utc | 68

“U.S. 10 Year Treasury Note
+
Watchlist
Last Updated: Apr 3, 2025 8:32 a.m. EDT
%
4.053
-0.074”
Treasuries are rallying (three weeks ago the 10 yr. was 4.7%)because the tariffs will bring in more revenue to the US.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 12:34 utc | 69

Posted by: M.J. | Apr 3 2025 12:19 utc | 63
What you, and Trump o suppose, do not understand is that Vat is not a tariff on export because it’s applied to local products too.
What you must compare is the price of the US guitar to the price of the equivalent EU guitar before VAT.

Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 12:36 utc | 70

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:37 utc | 52
Maybe you and Bloomberg are right IF these two parameters cancelled each other out for ALL countries, i.e. if they were made non-country-specific. I believe these two elasticities should change depending on country or blocks of countries.
But even if the two elasticities were such that they cancelled each other for ALL countries, the simple formula used could be justified on the facts that (1) conventional international trade models failed to predict the outcome of balance trade for America in the last 3 decades so there is no mechanistic valid formula from models to achieve balanced trade and (2) that the ostensible purpose of the tariff delta is to achieve balanced trade.
The simple, ad hoc formula just ignores all mechanistic models and jumps to the end product, which is the trade balance.
So I still think that the calculation of the tariff delta makes sense within the ostensible logic of balancing trade and the implicit push to re-industrialize.
Probably a more valid criticism is that this coercive trade balancing doesn’t take into account knockoff effects on other components of the American economy.

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 12:40 utc | 71

“Reality is that, if not for the existence more or less forced of usd as the reserve currency the US wouldn’t be able to run the massive deficit in the trade balance.”
Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 12:32 utc | 68
You are right but ‘reserve currencies’ don’t last forever- ask the Romans (denarius), the Portuguese (the escudo), the Spanish (the peso), the French (the franc), and the British (the pound)-now the twilight is on the US dollar.
However, the blessing of a being a reserve currency also has bred into it a curse; the Sovereign country hosting, issuing its reserve currency MUST run fiscal deficits in order for other Sovereigns to use the reserve currency.
Herein lies the US problem today.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 12:41 utc | 72

Repose from yesterday’s:
Posted by: John Gilberts | Apr 3 2025 3:15 utc | 226
It is wrong to say that US can manage imports shifting from one country to another when it applies tariffs on everyone at once.
The most likely result will be huge price rise that will bankrupt US consumers while reducing choice/supply, which will increase prices furthermore.
Expect global economic slow down and US hyperinflation.
Re-industrialization might come decades later or never.
Immediate US Treasury income increase to be moderate and temporary at best…
Rand Paul is right.

Posted by: Greg Galloway | Apr 3 2025 12:44 utc | 73

The bottom line of all this squaring the ledger nonsense is that it will not make America great again. Nothing will. Was America so great in the first place? One could argue it was simply a mirage created by Europe being devastated by two big wars. And one could argue that things just move on over the last seventy odd years. Other nations learn from the American model of economics and industry and lift their game. Other nations have older, more deeply rooted culture upon which to build, longer, more sophisticated experience in diplomacy and business. They have tact. Whatever was good about America (I’m taking The Beach Boys as my yardstick) was never going to last, because that is the nature of invention or leadership. It takes a while to accept this, to move on and look to others respectfully. I suspect America has a lot further to fall behind yet.

Posted by: Gerry Bell | Apr 3 2025 12:44 utc | 74

In the short term there will be a sharp inflation spike as US merchants take the introduction of universal tariffs as a golden opportunity to raise prices and improve profit margins. The same thing happened when the Euro replaced National currencies.
When a loaf of bread costs a trillion dollars, US debt will be inflated away.
As for 20% VAT, in UK/EU, never forget that the VAT + goods is paid for with income that has already been taxed at a minimum of 20%.

Posted by: CitizenSmith | Apr 3 2025 12:46 utc | 75

“- Tariffs make EVERYONE poorer.”
Posted by: WMG | Apr 3 2025 12:25 utc | 66
Not according to history: the US which was the powerhouse economy of the 19th century began high tariffs in 1789 which persisted till 1913 when income tax was introduced.(1):
1. Early Tariffs (1789-1820s)
The Tariff of 1789: After the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the first major law passed by Congress was a tariff aimed at raising revenue for the new government. This tariff primarily taxed imports of goods like textiles and sugar, as the young nation was struggling to pay off Revolutionary War debts.
The Tariff of 1816: This was one of the first “protective” tariffs, designed to protect U.S. manufacturing from cheap British imports after the War of 1812. It aimed to encourage domestic industry by taxing imported goods.
2. The Tariff of Abominations (1828)
This tariff was highly controversial, particularly in the Southern states. It significantly raised duties on imported goods, which upset Southern farmers who relied on imported manufactured goods. The tariff was seen as benefiting Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern agricultural interests.
The controversy led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833, when South Carolina attempted to nullify the tariff, which almost led to a confrontation with the federal government. The crisis was eventually resolved with a compromise tariff that lowered duties over several years.
3. The Civil War and Post-War Tariffs (1860s-1870s)
The Morrill Tariff of 1861: This was a key piece of legislation passed just before the Civil War, which raised tariffs on imported goods. It was designed to protect Northern industries and raise revenue for the war effort. The high tariffs became a point of contention between North and South.
After the war, tariffs remained high as the U.S. government sought to protect domestic industries and encourage industrialization.
4. Late 19th Century (1880s-1900s)
During this period, the U.S. economy was rapidly industrializing. Tariffs were a major source of revenue for the government and were used to protect fledgling industries in the U.S. from foreign competition.
The McKinley Tariff of 1890 and the Dingley Tariff of 1897 were some of the most significant tariff acts during this era, both of which raised tariff rates to protect U.S. businesses.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 12:48 utc | 76

Warshington lives to make war.
Warshington runs huge budget deficits to make war.
These deficits increase the stock of money, eroding the purchasing power of all money including money Warshington spends to make war.
Tariffs remove currency from circulation, helping maintain the purchasing power of money Warshington spends to make war.

The combination of policy moves (tariffs, continued or expanded war budgets) suggest “guns, not butter” policy, designed to preserve Warshington purchasing power on guns at the expense of serfs’ purchasing power for butter.

Posted by: I forgot | Apr 3 2025 12:49 utc | 77

“Probably a more valid criticism is that this coercive trade balancing doesn’t take into account knockoff effects on other components of the American economy.”
Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 12:40 utc | 72
Exactly.
For example between Canada and the US pts for cars are going back and forth all the time-very difficult to measure.
It is a valid criticism.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 12:50 utc | 78

in QE the Fed is certainly diluting
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 11:51 utc | 57

“As I posted @24
But wait! There is more.
Price discovery is just getting started.”
Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 11:59 utc | 60
Do you realize that the Fed CANNOT bid or buy in the Primary market-only in the secondary bond market.
“The Federal Reserve (the Fed) does not bid on bonds when they are issued (the primary market), but it does participate in the secondary market by buying and selling existing Treasury securities to influence interest rates and the money supply.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Primary Market:
When the U.S. Treasury issues new bonds (Treasury securities), it does so through auctions where investors, including primary dealers (financial institutions authorized to trade directly with the Fed), submit bids. The Fed does not participate in these auctions and does not purchase new Treasury securities directly from the Treasury. ”

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 12:56 utc | 79

@15
“But that’s just my opinion.”
It’s a valid opinion Keith.

Posted by: Fred777 | Apr 3 2025 12:59 utc | 80

French “overseas department” of Réunion island (population 896175 in 2025) is known for its remoteness and abundance of sharks.
Their main export is said to be sugar but it is a small island so there can’t be all that much of it. 63 km long, 45 km wide, 2512 square km, and dominated by a central volcano with forested slopes.
I am curious about precisely which goods the US is importing from them since they get a tariff of 37%.
Norfolk Island (Australia) at 29% is funny as well.
Glad I’m not trying to defend this stuff :3

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Apr 3 2025 13:00 utc | 81

Posted by: Newbie | Apr 3 2025 10:56 utc | 34
You are wrong.
Vat on (final customer import) just balances regular vat on any equivalent sale.

No, I’m not wrong. Trump doesn’t care about internal German taxes but what a consumer has to pay for american goods. And thise are all american taxes inclusive the american sales tax + tariff + Einfuhrumsatzsteuer (which is not simple a VAT and has a regulation in a different law).
On the other around american buyers have not to pay german VAT (this time it is the actual Umsatzsteuer) but american taxes and tariffs. As a result are european goods cheaper than americans.

Posted by: Tuk | Apr 3 2025 13:00 utc | 82

Correction: two volcanoes! One mostly in the center and one to the south-east 🙂

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Apr 3 2025 13:04 utc | 83

The discussion about VAT is interesting.
Conceptually, VAT is the state imposing itself as a partner of all primary transactions. An absentee partner that takes its cut on every primary transaction.
In practice, VAT is an internal tariff, which adds to the price of affected products.
So tariffs and VAT act additively over the price of products.
Therefore, VAT differentials should also enter into the calculations of trade balancing through tariffs.
The USA doesn’t have a federal VAT but states have various sales taxes that never reach so high levels as the VAT in other countries.
So for instance European buyers are affected by large prices due to VATs often hovering at around 20%. In the USA, sales taxes are 10% at the max, often much less. So American producers are at a disavantage when exporting to Europe because their products will be more expensive with the VAT that the euro state claims for itself.
I think this means that the very high euro VATs need to be taken into account when trying to balance trade between American and European countries.

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 13:06 utc | 84

reply to 78
I respect your hypothesis about money and war but it is very difficult to see it in practice. The US has made war a priority for decades and gotten away with it – and still does. Maybe Wolf or Hudson can explain how this goes on indefinitely or when it will stop. I do recall inflation/stagflation after Vietnam and that requires some explanation as to why it happened. Maybe if de-dollarization succeeds, things will change.

Posted by: Eighthman | Apr 3 2025 13:13 utc | 85

Do you realize that the Fed CANNOT bid or buy in the Primary market-only in the secondary bond market.
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 12:56 utc | 80

Also known as eating their own dog food.
The shit is the same regardless of how many dogs it passes through.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 13:16 utc | 86

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 10:28 utc | 30
Divide by zero ==> NaN.
>>>
I think you failed the maths test – it’s infinity.

Posted by: pepe | Apr 3 2025 13:22 utc | 87

…. Watchlist
Last Updated: Apr 3, 2025 8:32 a.m. EDT
%
4.053
-0.074″
Treasuries are rallying (three weeks ago the 10 yr. was 4.7%)because the tariffs will bring in more revenue to the US.
Posted by: canuk……..
Barflies – this is the critical data point. Reflect please

Posted by: Exile | Apr 3 2025 13:23 utc | 88

@Johan Kaspar

So for instance European buyers are affected by large prices due to VATs often hovering at around 20%. In the USA, sales taxes are 10% at the max, often much less. So American producers are at a disavantage when exporting to Europe because their products will be more expensive with the VAT that the euro state claims for itself.
I think this means that the very high euro VATs need to be taken into account when trying to balance trade between American and European countries.

Disadvantaged against whom exactly? You have to pay VAT also on goods produced domestically as has been pointed out multiple times. A German-produced car in Germany sold to a German will have the same VAT as an American-produced car sold to a German in Germany.
Also, where is this so called deficit? How about all the services the USA exports to the EU?

Posted by: EuropeanTraveller | Apr 3 2025 13:23 utc | 89

“A bill that would have made Utah the first state to pay vendors in gold passed nearly unanimously—but was suddenly vetoed by Governor Spencer Cox. No warning. No explanation. And no clear logic.
“Every Republican and Democrat voted for it, yet the governor killed it anyway.”
The bill would have allowed vendors to choose gold payments through vetted, secure, and private infrastructure. It posed no threat to state systems. So why the quiet veto?
Insiders suspect pressure from above, because if Utah pulls this off, other states will follow. And the central planners can’t risk people having a real choice in sound money.
“This is about preserving freedom, savings, and property rights before the dollar collapses.” ”
Zero Hedge

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 13:28 utc | 90

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 13:16 utc | 87
I give up; stick with your bias on financial matters as you, ‘know just enough about finance to be dangerous”.

Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 13:30 utc | 91

Posted by: EuropeanTraveller | Apr 3 2025 13:23 utc | 90
> How about all the services the USA exports to the EU?
What services?
And BTW, how services can be exported? Like lamps you rub to activate the service?

Posted by: hopehely | Apr 3 2025 13:32 utc | 92

I’ll just write it as it was called.
By my banker when I showed him the websites with the list.
His statement after about 45 seconds
Only confirms our opinion:
“Here they want to deliberately destroy the global economy with all sorts of lies…Preparing for the Great Reset!!!”

Posted by: berthold | Apr 3 2025 13:37 utc | 93

Posted by: hopehely | Apr 3 2025 13:32 utc | 93
Services are indeed exported or imported and are part of the total trade balance.
Amazon or Facebook are examples of services that are exported.

Posted by: Mario | Apr 3 2025 13:39 utc | 94

A stock market circus on TV right now from New York
Unemployment figures are expected in the next few hours…
But it’s already becoming apparent that these figures will rocket upwards.
Trump and his team seem to have no idea what a powder keg they’re sitting on, or…longer pause in the commentary…
They’re doing it on purpose??

Posted by: berthold | Apr 3 2025 13:42 utc | 95

Posted by: EuropeanTraveller | Apr 3 2025 13:23 utc | 90
Disadvantaged against whom exactly?

Against the car exporter from Europe to America of course, because America doesn’t charge 20% VAT. I thought that was evident. The topic here is trade balancing.

Posted by: Johan Kaspar | Apr 3 2025 13:45 utc | 96

I give up
Posted by: canuck | Apr 3 2025 13:30 utc | 92

In all things financial I think you’ll find “Sentence first — Verdict afterwards”.

Posted by: too scents | Apr 3 2025 13:45 utc | 97

MW @ 56 is clearly a Yank. When he has no argument he immediately turns to ad hominem insults. So here’s a bit of “reciprocity” – your “Messiah” is a mental defective and you’re too dumb to see it.

Posted by: WilsonK | Apr 3 2025 13:52 utc | 98

The method of calculating tariffs really does not matter so much as tariffs are imposed.
Quibbling about the “reasonability” of tariffs imposed is pointless because Trump’s/Bessent’s economic theory is that the US is a premium export destination – arguably THE premium export destination due to the relative absence of protections against export dumping into the US. The EU, for example, has all manner of export dumping protections ranging from regulatory to taxation to “rice not a fit for European tastes” type nonsense (what Japan does to limit rice imports).
This is a very different situation than your standard 2nd/3rd world mercantilist style protective tariff; in the 2nd/3rd world mercantilist situation – the nation in question has to balance its necessary relations with the 1st world. That’s why the WTO was created – it was created to limit the levels of protections that these 2nd/3rd world nations could enact.
It boils down to this: are the US tariffs worse than the EU’s/any-other-countries?
Can the EU/any-other-country absorb the exports that otherwise would have been sent to the US?
What happens to exporters if they choose to stop exporting to their biggest per capita customer?
Note that the EU, overall, is a bigger share of world trade than the US but the EU has a significantly larger population and a significant percentage of their imports are energy, unlike the US. The actual numbers are 8.3% vs 14.2% for respective populations of 335M vs 448M, but 38% of the EU’s imports are energy vs. a net export of petroleum/petroleum products for the US.
Or in other words: this is a variant of the “if you owe 100 bucks to the bank, it is your problem but if you owe $100M to the bank, it is the bank’s problem” transformed into “if you export $100 million to a rich nation, it is the rich nation’s problem but if you export $300 billion to a rich nation, it is your problem if they impose tariffs”.
I don’t know for a fact whether this is the plan – but a virtual partial self sanctioning via punitive tariffs is a significant replication of the Russian 2022 to present economic situation. Russia is self sufficient in energy and food, so is the US. Russia is more self sufficient on the overall commodities situation than the US, but the US is not a slouch either unlike the EU.
So from my view: this is a bold experiment albeit one with a clearly reasoned objective and methodology. The amount of tariffs can be changed over time; the relative tariffs on those the US considers abusive exporters (i.e. China) plus the countries most easily/likely to be used to evade (i.e. Vietnam, Malaysia etc) is consistent, and so is having a tariff on every nation on earth – because the Russian sanctions have also demonstrated that determined exporters can do all sorts of funny things to get around rules (Belarussian salmon and shrimp, for example, when the nation is landlocked) – are higher than most other nations’ tariffs.
Yes, Dr. Michael Hudson will complain that there is no CPC style 5 year/10 year/30 year plan to accompany these tariffs so the tariffs must be bad.
Yet again – Russia did not have CPC style plans. Putin did enact a few measures when sanctions started in 2014 but the he and the Russian government spent almost no money on building import substitution outside of a handful of specific areas.
Are Americans less capable, less entrepreneurial, less skilled, less privately wealthy than Russians?
We will find out.

Posted by: c1ue | Apr 3 2025 13:55 utc | 99

Posted by: berthold | Apr 3 2025 13:42 utc | 96
The economy before Trump was massively propped up by public spending, employing a sh#t ton of federal employees doing… who knows what, DEI initiatives? The economy was also propped up by millions of illegal immigrants who were given free funny money to spend and rent housing.
Now all these flows are reversed – naturally one expects the economy bubble likewise to pop.

Posted by: unimperator | Apr 3 2025 14:02 utc | 100