Opinion INTERNATIONAL Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 6

[119others]

You missed the part where I said I think he’s mostly grossly wrong in his program.

I am not totally convinced he actually cares about the working class, but he definitely knows there are votes in appearing to, and huge numbers of them believe him.

The tariffs thing is wrong-headed imho, but the idea (at least the stated idea) is to revive manufacturing in America.

More likely it’s just an alternative source of revenue so that he can try to get more tax cuts through, but will harm the poorest through inflation.

Ok fair enough.

Besides the hard core - can’t be saved - MAGA’s who still love Trumpy almost as much, the other support he picked up for the last election victory (uneducated young men, Mexican/Cuban etc born) is dramatically reducing with recent reputable polls (Reuters) showing drops from circa 80% approval to now circa 65% and heading down.

I am convinced someone who was duped into voting for him will wake up angry one day and seek revenge. And it “could be nasty” in Trumps words. Clearly I don’t condone political violence but this is my thoughts

 

[WeeBlake]

If he’s right about all these things and you hate him, how much must you hate every other politician who not only denies these realities but actively works against them?

I’m pretty disillusioned with the entire political class. But not so disillusioned that I’ll get behind a guy who doesn’t accept election results. I do not think strongman government is good.

Anyway, it’s absolutely clear now that Trump ses the rest of the world as a sponge to be squeezed, friend and foe alike. Must be hard to be an Australian Trump fan now.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I’m pretty disillusioned with the entire political class. But not so disillusioned that I’ll get behind a guy who doesn’t accept election results. I do not think strongman government is good.

Anyway, it’s absolutely clear now that Trump ses the rest of the world as a sponge to be squeezed, friend and foe alike. Must be hard to be an Australian Trump fan now.

How is Trump squeezing Russia, Iran & North Korea?

 

[Cleric]

I'm pretty confident that Australia is going to come out the other side of this trade war in a better position than before.

 

[Cleric]

Do you understand how he came up with his tariff concept? Serious question.

All these millions of lost factory jobs that have moved to low cost countries in Asia. Having been to China 9 times for work and seeing China outsourcing many factory jobs to Vietnam etc as their labour costs have also gone up. I am sure the almost full employment economy in the US can’t wait to bring back these jobs averaging USD $1-2 / hour. Or do we understand that labour costs won’t materially come down in the US and therefore higher costs and therefore prices will continue. Higher I/Rates to counteract that. Lower growth. Stagflation ultimately.

No country has ever “tariff’d” their way out of economic problems. The failed businessman Trump is unlikely to be the first. How anyone can think he is smarter than the almost universally opinion of Economists is beyond me. So much for comparative advantages of nations which has underpinned the global trading system and wealth creation for the last century. The convicted felon and sex offender orange turd just knows better. Listen to him - “he is a very very great example of a genius of a man who knows all the very best people. The smartest people. He will do wonderful things for the country that you won’t be able to believe. A golden age”. Either that or he is *ing stupid and is about to * everything up like we have never seen before. Watching and learning about this fraudster I know where I would be placing my money

Start of the end for the US. It may have happened anyway but Trump is guaranteeing it. Historic allies turning away from and making different alliances both economic and military (eg Aus/NZ, with NATO exc US adding Japan, Indian, Korea). The USD will lose its reserve currency status. I can now reveal (with the passage of time) someone I know very well worked for the World Bank in the GFC and they were preparing for the US to default on their debt then and had prepared a new reserve currency involving EUD, RMB, JPY and gold. The US is going down under Trump

I don't tend to take economists that seriously. They get things more wrong than the weather man, and tend to only be good at explaining how things went wrong after the fact.
Ask 10 economists the same question and you will get 10 different answers.

People have to understand that Trump thinks of everything like its a buisness.
How a buisness CEO will run his company is very different to how most politicians run their countries.
He is the first businessman to be in that position in the US.
In buisness the other companies are your opposition, and you are in competition for market share.
He sees other countries as opposition to the US, and not trading partners.
So, in his mind, he has to take an adversarial approach to them.
When he sees a trade deficit he sees the US getting ripped off.
We look at trade as a macrothing. OK, we sell more to country A than we buy, but we buy more from country B than we sell. When they are added up together, how did we go.

He is looking at it like a CFO. He is going through every line entry. He thinks that the US should sell more to every country than it buys. So if there is a trade deficit with one country, then it's a loss on the PL sheet, and needs to be addressed.
Now, thats impractical and doesn't work with international trade, but he is so narcissistic (and that's not always a bad thing) and parochial, that he thinks the US can win on every deal with every country. Sometimes confidence can be your weak point.

How he worked his tarrifs out is this.
Everyone got the baseline of 10%. Then, countries that the US has a trade deficit with, or had tarrifs on the US, he increased that base rate.
We only got 10% as the US has a massive trade surplus with us, so he is winning this deal, but we get the baseline.

There has always been a small group of economists who believe tarrifs do work, and they do in some instances. All the less developed countries have tarrifs to protect their industry from the bigger more powerful ones. These give them breathing space to build up their economy and make it resilient enough to compete on the open market.

You have to understand that these tarrifs arnt just a wild invention of Trumps. He doesn't know enough about them to lead anything like this.
His main man is Dr Peter Navaro, one of the most educated economists out there. He has a Phd in Economics from Harvard, a Masters in Public Administrative from Harvard, and is a Professor Emeratus of Economics and Public Policy at the University of California.
He is the one who has formulated this move and Trump is following it.

If nothing else, it's going to be interesting to see what the real life outcomes are of this theory. Will tarrifs be as good as Navaro believes, or will it be as bad as other economists believe.

I think it could benefit us in the long run, that's why Albo isn't jumping at shadows.

 

[Cleric]

Agree with much of this but seriously how is he looking after the working class? Cutting ACA and lots of other programs catering to the lower income demographic? Giving trillion dollar tax cuts to the richest 5% whilst increasing taxes to the bottom 40%. Increasing inflation on every day goods where there is no elasticity of demand (ability to reduce demand when prices rise) in many cases (esp for staples like food). Making it harder for lower socio economic groups to vote (who is this likely to favour going forward I wonder). Crashing the economy and investment returns for everyone inc retirees and people looking to retire. Taking away liberties and pillars of democracy including free speech and press, independent judiciary and having checks and balances to curtail Executive power. Everything he is doing is leading to the US becoming an Autocracy.

You have to be careful repeating US political talking points as they are always slanted and not accurate, from both sides.
Trump didn't increase the tax rates for the lowest 40%,
Before his tax cuts, the lowest bracket was 10% and stayed on that.
The next bracket was cut from 15% to 12%, and the next bracket dropped from 25% to 22%.

He also dropped tax rates for all brackets, so the top rate dropped from 39.6 to 37%, and corporate tax went from 35% to 21%.
So as a % of their tax bill, the lower income earners saw a bigger % drop in tax than the top bracket did, as 3 point drop on a 15% is more than a 2.6 point drop from 35%.

People who run around complaining that the corporate tax rates dropping is going into the pockets of billionaires fail to understand how corporations work. What do corporations do with the extra profit they get? Do you think they put in the CEOs pocket? No, it goes back to share dividends, which increases the value of your superannuation, the retirement investments of older people, etc.
Or, they reinvest that money into growing their company. Expand the factory, update their car fleet, employ more sales people.

The other issue was the US corporate tax rates was one of the highest in the developed world. The average tax rate in the EU is 21%, Ireland is 12.5% for instance.
The problems for countries is that in the global world, companies can move their head office to any country, so they will move it to countries with low corporate tax rates. This is the exact reason the Irish economy went from being a basket case to very strong. The government slashed corporate tax rates to attract companies to set up their offices there.
They can move their head office to the UAE or the Cayman Islands where there is a zero tax rate.
So, as the US had relatively high corporate tax rates, they had to cut them to continue to be competitive with other countries. That's one of the side effects of globalisation.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm pretty confident that Australia is going to come out the other side of this trade war in a better position than before.

How about the USA though?

 

[119others]

I don't tend to take economists that seriously. They get things more wrong than the weather man, and tend to only be good at explaining how things went wrong after the fact.
Ask 10 economists the same question and you will get 10 different answers.

People have to understand that Trump thinks of everything like its a buisness.
How a buisness CEO will run his company is very different to how most politicians run their countries.
He is the first businessman to be in that position in the US.
In buisness the other companies are your opposition, and you are in competition for market share.
He sees other countries as opposition to the US, and not trading partners.
So, in his mind, he has to take an adversarial approach to them.
When he sees a trade deficit he sees the US getting ripped off.
We look at trade as a macrothing. OK, we sell more to country A than we buy, but we buy more from country B than we sell. When they are added up together, how did we go.

He is looking at it like a CFO. He is going through every line entry. He thinks that the US should sell more to every country than it buys. So if there is a trade deficit with one country, then it's a loss on the PL sheet, and needs to be addressed.
Now, thats impractical and doesn't work with international trade, but he is so narcissistic (and that's not always a bad thing) and parochial, that he thinks the US can win on every deal with every country. Sometimes confidence can be your weak point.

How he worked his tarrifs out is this.
Everyone got the baseline of 10%. Then, countries that the US has a trade deficit with, or had tarrifs on the US, he increased that base rate.
We only got 10% as the US has a massive trade surplus with us, so he is winning this deal, but we get the baseline.

There has always been a small group of economists who believe tarrifs do work, and they do in some instances. All the less developed countries have tarrifs to protect their industry from the bigger more powerful ones. These give them breathing space to build up their economy and make it resilient enough to compete on the open market.

You have to understand that these tarrifs arnt just a wild invention of Trumps. He doesn't know enough about them to lead anything like this.
His main man is Dr Peter Navaro, one of the most educated economists out there. He has a Phd in Economics from Harvard, a Masters in Public Administrative from Harvard, and is a Professor Emeratus of Economics and Public Policy at the University of California.
He is the one who has formulated this move and Trump is following it.

If nothing else, it's going to be interesting to see what the real life outcomes are of this theory. Will tarrifs be as good as Navaro believes, or will it be as bad as other economists believe.

I think it could benefit us in the long run, that's why Albo isn't jumping at shadows.

Sorry there’s a lot of stuff there and not really sure what your point is. Navarro is a fraud who made up someone to support his views who was an economic expert called “Ron Vara” in 6 of his books. It’s a fictional person based on the letters of his surname. Are you aware of this?

The facts are no major country has ever used to tariffs on this sort of scale successfully. You don’t need to give me an economics lesson as I have worked in finance for 30 years (and was invited to our Governors House in year 12 for achievement in economics) so probably don’t need the basics.

 

[119others]

People who run around complaining that the corporate tax rates dropping is going into the pockets of billionaires fail to understand how corporations work. What do corporations do with the extra profit they get? Do you think they put in the CEOs pocket? No, it goes back to share dividends, which increases the value of your superannuation, the retirement investments of older people, etc.
Or, they reinvest that money into growing their company. Expand the factory, update their car fleet, employ more sales people.

Hang on higher profits absolutely feed into CEO remuneration. That’s an inarguable fact.

Shares are disproportionately held by middle class/richer class so of course it’s not spread evenly in the economy when company tax cuts happen.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Tesla bull slashing price target on Tesla stock. He's talking about some of stuff mentioned in here already about politics alienating their own customers. Also mentions that a trade war with China will lead to Chinese customers buying local made cars.

Side note. Is anyone else here noticing a shit tonne of BYD cars on Australian roads lately? I keep seeing them everywhere

Tesla bull Dan Ives has drastically cut his price target for Tesla, calling it a 'political symbol'

Dan Ives' Wedbush Securities slashed its 12-month price target for the stock from $550 to $315 — a 43% cut.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[WeeBlake]

How is Trump squeezing Russia, Iran & North Korea?

I think you missed my point. He just wants to use American power to squeeze money out of everyone. Look at the tariffs. It’s blindingly obvious.

I’m not defending him. What he wants to do to Ukraine is outrageous.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think you missed my point. He just wants to use American power to squeeze money out of everyone. Look at the tariffs. It’s blindingly obvious.

I’m not defending him. What he wants to do to Ukraine is outrageous.

You missed my point, he is not squeezing out of everyone... as note the countries he excluded. It's very telling!

 

[Cleric]

How about the USA though?

Not so sure.
Yes, tarrifs will bring jobs back to the US, but at what cost.
We can't underestimate that the US is the largest economy in the world, the number 1 consumer market in the world, three times the next which is China, and everyone wants their products to sell there.
There will be alot of companies, especially US ones, that will want to keep that as their number 1 priority.
We wait to see if the movement of manufacturing jobs back to the US offsets the cost of the tarrifs.
There is theory each way, and I don't know which one will come out ahead, that's why it's a very interesting watch.

If it does pay off, then alot of other countries will follow suit.
While globalisation has had some benefits such as cheaper goods, it has had some downsides.

 

[Cleric]

Hang on higher profits absolutely feed into CEO remuneration. That’s an inarguable fact.

Shares are disproportionately held by middle class/richer class so of course it’s not spread evenly in the economy when company tax cuts happen.

CEOs get paid according to their ability to run companies.
We live in a free market, and one of those is competition for the best CEOs. Companies are all trying to attract the best ones to their companies, which is why they get paid so much. If it was an easy job, and there was millions of people who were good at it, they wouldn't be getting the money they do.

Everyone has a superannuation fund, which is what we all rely on to retire with. The dividends shares receive go to increasing that.
Do rich people have more shares than poor people? Yes. They also have more property, cash in the bank, and nicer cars.

 

[StonesThrow]

If he’s right about all these things and you hate him, how much must you hate every other politician who not only denies these realities but actively works against them?

It's called sitting on a fence

 

[Cleric]

Sorry there’s a lot of stuff there and not really sure what your point is. Navarro is a fraud who made up someone to support his views who was an economic expert called “Ron Vara” in 6 of his books. It’s a fictional person based on the letters of his surname. Are you aware of this?

The facts are no major country has ever used to tariffs on this sort of scale successfully. You don’t need to give me an economics lesson as I have worked in finance for 30 years (and was invited to our Governors House in year 12 for achievement in economics) so probably don’t need the basics.

I'm aware of Vara, as is everyone that knows anything about him.
That doesn't take away from his academic credentials and work experience.
The point is that it is him that is driving Trumps tarrifs policy, it's not something Trump came up with on the golf course.

There are a number of economists who think tarrifs are a key tool in righting the ship, and there are many that say they arnt.
We get to see how it turns out in real life, and if it's a failure then it will be used for generations as a lesson in economics.

I'm not sure how it will turn out, but just because countries on mass haven't done it before, doesn't mean it won't work.

Trump has an out with it as well. If it's looking like its not going to work, he can then makes deals with all the countries to get them reduced and then claim it as a win. He will say he was the only President who was good enough to do it.

People misunderstand Trump. They think he wants to be President to enrich himself, which isn't true. His fortune went backwards after his first term, never took a wage and paid a price with Democrat retaliatory action.
He is the only president who didn't become millionaires after their term. He lost billions.

He wants to be in the history books as the best president in US history. He wants a legacy of turning the US around and making it the strongest country in the world. It's his ego he wants to expand, not his wallet.

 

[Slippery Pete]

How about the USA though?

Nobody knows yet.

Lots of eulogizing and catastrophizing (a lot more of the latter tbh) but we will just have to see how it plays out.

 

[Cleric]

I asked ChatGPT what areas could Australia gain from the US/ China tarrifs.

With China placing 35% tariffs on U.S. goods, it creates a strategic opening for Australia to replace or expand exports to China in several key areas.

Here’s a breakdown of what China could shift from the U.S. to Australia:


---

1. Agricultural Products

Beef

Australia is already a top supplier of high-quality beef to China.

U.S. beef now faces stiff tariffs, while Australian beef is seen as safe, traceable, and reliable.

Australia can increase market share in premium cuts and chilled/frozen beef.


Barley

Australia regained access to China in 2023 after tariffs were dropped.

With U.S. barley now more expensive, Australia can fill any grain gaps.


Wine

China previously imposed tariffs on Australian wine but is now restoring trade.

With U.S. wine under new tariffs, Australia’s comeback in wine exports looks very promising.


Dairy

China is a huge consumer of milk powders, cheese, and infant formula.

Australia is a major dairy exporter, while U.S. dairy now becomes less price-competitive.



---

2. Energy and Resources

LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas)

Australia is one of the largest LNG exporters in the world.

If China scales back U.S. LNG imports, Australian LNG is the obvious substitute, already flowing via long-term contracts.


Coal

Metallurgical coal (for steelmaking) is a key Chinese import.

After a brief political pause, Australia is again exporting coal to China, and U.S. coal will struggle to compete on price and logistics.


Iron Ore

U.S. does not supply meaningful iron ore to China.

Australia is already the dominant global supplier, and that continues unchanged.


Lithium and Rare Earths

Australia is a leading producer of lithium, cobalt, and critical minerals needed for EVs and semiconductors.

China is investing heavily in supply chains — and Australia’s mines are far more strategic now that U.S. exports are under pressure.



---

3. Consumer Goods & Services

Education

Australian universities attract large numbers of Chinese students.

With political tension and visa uncertainty in the U.S., Australia looks like a safer, closer, more welcoming alternative.


Tourism

As travel resumes, China may steer outbound tourists toward Australia rather than the U.S.

Australia’s image as clean, safe, and close to home is an asset.



---

Conclusion:

China could easily replace or scale back U.S. imports in favor of Australia in sectors like:

Beef

Wine

LNG

Coal

Barley

Dairy

Lithium

Education

Tourism


With existing infrastructure, trade agreements (like RCEP), and favorable public perception, Australia is uniquely placed to absorb a major share of U.S. trade losses to China — especially in strategic and high-trust sectors.

 

[OneGreatClub]

lol like clockwork

 

[OneGreatClub]

I'm aware of Vara, as is everyone that knows anything about him.
That doesn't take away from his academic credentials and work experience.
The point is that it is him that is driving Trumps tarrifs policy, it's not something Trump came up with on the golf course.

There are a number of economists who think tarrifs are a key tool in righting the ship, and there are many that say they arnt.
We get to see how it turns out in real life, and if it's a failure then it will be used for generations as a lesson in economics.

I'm not sure how it will turn out, but just because countries on mass haven't done it before, doesn't mean it won't work.

Trump has an out with it as well. If it's looking like its not going to work, he can then makes deals with all the countries to get them reduced and then claim it as a win. He will say he was the only President who was good enough to do it.

People misunderstand Trump. They think he wants to be President to enrich himself, which isn't true. His fortune went backwards after his first term, never took a wage and paid a price with Democrat retaliatory action.
He is the only president who didn't become millionaires after their term. He lost billions.

He wants to be in the history books as the best president in US history. He wants a legacy of turning the US around and making it the strongest country in the world. It's his ego he wants to expand, not his wallet.

Do you are saying that Vara is not a made up person, are you?

 

[feenix67]

I don't tend to take economists that seriously. They get things more wrong than the weather man, and tend to only be good at explaining how things went wrong after the fact.
Ask 10 economists the same question and you will get 10 different answers.

People have to understand that Trump thinks of everything like its a buisness.
How a buisness CEO will run his company is very different to how most politicians run their countries.
He is the first businessman to be in that position in the US.
In buisness the other companies are your opposition, and you are in competition for market share.
He sees other countries as opposition to the US, and not trading partners.
So, in his mind, he has to take an adversarial approach to them.
When he sees a trade deficit he sees the US getting ripped off.
We look at trade as a macrothing. OK, we sell more to country A than we buy, but we buy more from country B than we sell. When they are added up together, how did we go.

He is looking at it like a CFO. He is going through every line entry. He thinks that the US should sell more to every country than it buys. So if there is a trade deficit with one country, then it's a loss on the PL sheet, and needs to be addressed.
Now, thats impractical and doesn't work with international trade, but he is so narcissistic (and that's not always a bad thing) and parochial, that he thinks the US can win on every deal with every country. Sometimes confidence can be your weak point.

How he worked his tarrifs out is this.
Everyone got the baseline of 10%. Then, countries that the US has a trade deficit with, or had tarrifs on the US, he increased that base rate.
We only got 10% as the US has a massive trade surplus with us, so he is winning this deal, but we get the baseline.

There has always been a small group of economists who believe tarrifs do work, and they do in some instances. All the less developed countries have tarrifs to protect their industry from the bigger more powerful ones. These give them breathing space to build up their economy and make it resilient enough to compete on the open market.

You have to understand that these tarrifs arnt just a wild invention of Trumps. He doesn't know enough about them to lead anything like this.
His main man is Dr Peter Navaro, one of the most educated economists out there. He has a Phd in Economics from Harvard, a Masters in Public Administrative from Harvard, and is a Professor Emeratus of Economics and Public Policy at the University of California.
He is the one who has formulated this move and Trump is following it.

If nothing else, it's going to be interesting to see what the real life outcomes are of this theory. Will tarrifs be as good as Navaro believes, or will it be as bad as other economists believe.

I think it could benefit us in the long run, that's why Albo isn't jumping at shadows.

It's an almost laughably naive approach. Using tariffs to balance up your trade books is hilariously simplistic. Eventually he is going to have to prop up local industry impacted by his tarrifs (Apple, Nike, Automotive etc) so any revenue bump he achieves is going to be offset by subsidising local industry.

He wants to rebuild local industry in the US, and thats fine as a high level goal, but we are 50 years into globalisation. His industries are not going to be able to compete globally. If Apple start making iPhones locally they will cost $3k - why would anyone outside of the US buy one when you can get an Oppo or a Xiaomi for half that, and even a Galaxy for two thirds of that. Why would I buy $500 Nike shoes when I can get any other brand for half that?

His policies are isolationist and he's competing with a world that has moved on from that.

 

[Cleric]

Do you are saying that Vara is not a made up person, are you?

Huh? Vara was an anagram of his name. He quoted himself under that name.
He claims it was an inside joke, and wasn't meant to be serious.
The fact that he used a uncommon name, which would.easily be searched for, when he could have just said "one of my professors told me" and hidden it deeper makes you think it was an inside joke.
He didn't have to run with a bizarre anagram, yet he did.
It takes nothing away from his education or his work history.

 

[Cleric]

It's an almost laughably naive approach. Using tariffs to balance up your trade books is hilariously simplistic. Eventually he is going to have to prop up local industry impacted by his tarrifs (Apple, Nike, Automotive etc) so any revenue bump he achieves is going to be offset by subsidising local industry.

He wants to rebuild local industry in the US, and thats fine as a high level goal, but we are 50 years into globalisation. His industries are not going to be able to compete globally. If Apple start making iPhones locally they will cost $3k - why would anyone outside of the US buy one when you can get an Oppo or a Xiaomi for half that, and even a Galaxy for two thirds of that. Why would I buy $500 Nike shoes when I can get any other brand for half that?

His policies are isolationist and he's competing with a world that has moved on from that.

The part that I don't understand is how many factories are going to start making $3 tee shirts to compete with China?
The goal should be with getting more higher skilled jobs, in tech or industry making complex things like Aeroplanes, military equipment, ships, tractors, cars etc.

He could have been more precise in targeting those higher skilled industries.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Thought this was a decent take. Whether you agree with the solution or not, he correctly diagnoses the problem.

 

[Slippery Pete]

People misunderstand Trump.

Understatement of the century.

They’ve had ten years to figure this out and every day I wake up and see their analysis and it’s like they’re on day one and he’s coming down the escalator again.

I’ve never in my life seen a group of people learn less from their mistakes than these people.