this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
73 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2801 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump is escalating his threats to increase tariffs on imports if he wins a second term in the White House, reviving fears of renewed trade wars that hit the global economy during his presidency.

The Republican candidate, seeking to win blue-collar votes in swing states pivotal to November’s presidential election, has doubled down on his protectionist rhetoric, delivering blunt warnings of tariffs to US trading partners including the EU.

On Saturday, Trump went further, promising tariffs of 100 per cent on imports from countries that were moving away from using the dollar — a threat that could engulf many developing economies too.

“I’ll say, ‘you leave the dollar, you’re not doing business with the United States. Because we’re going to put a 100 per cent tariff on your goods,’” he said at a rally in Wisconsin.

“If we lost the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war,” he told the Economic Club of New York on Thursday.

https://archive.ph/2b2zp

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm starting to think differently about this. Everyone previously thought he didn't understand tariffs, and that's obviously still true, but I'm thinking he has someone manipulating him into going down this path because there is a major upside to some otherwise overlooked and under sourced industry based in the US. Like Stephen Miller is sitting on some underwater shares of US mining companies or whatever.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

He wouldn't be the first person to employ tariffs in order to encourage domestic development. A big part of the American Revolution revolved around northern industrial towns fighting for protectionist laws to discourage UK dumping their industrial surplus into colonial markets. Pennsylvania iron-mongers were some of the fiercest opponents of the British merchantalist system.

Prior to FDR, the primary method of US tax collection was tariffs on imports. And a big reason the policy ended was due to Europeans immolating all their industrial capital across two World Wars.

Like Stephen Miller is sitting on some underwater shares of US mining companies or whatever.

These goons are rarely so far-sighted. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's simply taking money up front from domestic lobbyists in the extraction industry. A big pivot to domestic fracking happened thanks to Bush/Obama/Trump era fossil fuel companies deluging state and national legislatures and governors with contributions to open up more public land for drilling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Why are you so sure it is domestic? The rhetoric plays to his jingoistic, isolationist base. But he is easily manipulated by foreign powers. China and Russia, and others would welcome a crumbling US. And Putin likely has other leverage on him

Though yes, there are certainly those within the US itself that would herald in its fall if they found it enriched themselves

[–] assaultpotato 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The who's who of nefarious countries: "Hey US? Yeah some of us have concerns that maybe your currency can be used as a weapon against us, so we're gonna do a whole bunch of political showboating to try to make a point. We're not motivated enough to actually do something, though."

DJT: "I'll give you something to be concerned about. Our currency that I'm ostensibly protecting the use of will be totally useless for you!"

It's like he doesn't realize that the US dollar is the world reserve because of the stability and reliability of it. We got there using carrots, mostly, and he thinks the stick is a good idea...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s like he doesn’t realize that the US dollar is the world reserve because of the stability and reliability of it.

I mean, its the World Reserve Currency because the world runs on Petroleum and the major petroleum producers all trade in dollars. One of the big threats to USD dominance is renewable energy, as you don't need to pay a Saudi in paper issued by the US Mint in order to power your house or run your car.

[–] assaultpotato 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ok, but why do all the major petroleum producers trade in USD? Yes the US buys a lot of oil, petrol, and natural gas, but the trading volume isn't that atypical of other wealthy, large geographic regions. They use it because it's stable, ubiquitous, and almost always accepted. If it's not stable or ubiquitous anymore due to these sorts of sanctions, why would the petrol producers keep using it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok, but why do all the major petroleum producers trade in USD?

Because the US cut a deal with the Saudis during the '71-'73 trade negotiations under Nixon, fixing the price of Saudi light sweet crude to USD. This helped backstop the falling value of the dollar after the official decoupling of USD from gold in 1971.

They use it because it’s stable, ubiquitous, and almost always accepted

The British Pound, the Swiss Franc, the Russian Ruble... even the Japanese Yen could have easily stood in for the US Dollar at the time. These were widely traded and regionally ubiquitous thanks to the international trade of the era. But it was the US with military bases scattered all over North Africa and the Middle East in the wake of WW2. And they were the post-WW2 industrial sector with the highest demand, in no small part thanks to US automotive industrial expansion.

If it’s not stable or ubiquitous anymore due to these sorts of sanctions, why would the petrol producers keep using it?

To access US financial markets, which have eclipsed the rest of the 20th century global banking powers. If you need USD to trade on the NYSE or to buy up US real estate or purchase US Treasuries, might as well trade oil. Also, we (in many ways literally) have a gun to the heads of Mid Eastern leaders. Just ask Saddam.

[–] assaultpotato 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pretty true. I have nothing really to add historically.

Having said that, there's nothing preventing this status quo from changing in the future if enough economies decide the risk of an erratic main trade partner isn't worth it anymore. The reward of controlling the main global reserve currency comes with the responsibility of not involving it in undue threats.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Having said that, there’s nothing preventing this status quo from changing in the future

There's substantial existing industrial infrastructure that makes a kilowatt of new petroleum energy easier to produce than a kilowatt of renewable energy. But that's a result of economic policies. Change the policies and you change the math.

It appears we are, both intentionally and inadvertently, slowly stacking the deck in favor of renewables.

The reward of controlling the main global reserve currency comes with the responsibility of not involving it in undue threats.

One might argue the reverse. The ability to hold the rest of the world hostage enables a nation to compel adoption of their domestic currency as the global reserve.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

That's the carrot, the US military, sanctions and the CIA tend to be the stick.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago

Financial Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Financial Times:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.ft.com/content/ac708b43-64ae-45b8-b60d-997e7904086a
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support