Want Relief from Tariff Angst?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Problem or opportunity?

Do some TLH, buy some bargains, pour yourself a Manhattan. It'll be over soon enough.

Probably not a good time for the "total return vs dividends for income" debate.
 
Our state (Washington) loves regressive taxes. The $0.50+ a gallon carbon tax on gasoline alone has to be one of the most regressive taxes in the country. Who usually has to drive long distances to their work and is not allowed to work from home? Lower paid blue collar workers. Who is more likely to drive a older gasoline car rather than an electric vehicle. Lower paid blue collar workers. Now you toss this national tariff tax on top of that and they will feel the pinch at Wal-mart AND the gas station.
 
Sounds crazy...
'Let's create an awful international crisis; and let the brains (game-play theorist) find an equable solution out of the mess.'. Might as well put the horse before the cart...and make it work.
 
marko said:
Problem or opportunity?

Do some TLH, buy some bargains, pour yourself a Manhattan. It'll be over soon enough.

Probably not a good time for the "total return vs dividends for income" debate.
Click to expand...
Correct.
A gin gimlet for me, please...
 
$6 trillion wiped out from the market in two days of trading after the announcement of tariffs.

I'm down about 14.5% from market peak in early December and about the same from another peak in mid February.

Is it all due to tariffs? Who knows.

The impact of the tariffs hasn't hit yet. There have been big price increases for goods.

I was looking at getting a new computer this year and maybe a new TV. Now I'm wondering whether to buy now rather than a few months later when inventories of goods shipped to the US before the tariffs are gone and goods imports after the tariffs may be subject to double-digit price increases.

I'm finishing up my taxes now, will have a big bill. So maybe the purchases I was thinking about may also end up hundreds or over a thousand more
 
pb4uski said:
But if the end game was to force some of our trading partners like the EU, Canada and Mexico to agree to lower existing tariffs in exchange for US not imposing higher tariffs on them, why couldn't that be achieved through aggressive negotiations behind closed doors and avoid all this angst?
Click to expand...

Negotiations seem unlikely. One rationale for tariffs vs. Canada and Mexico is fentanyl. There are negligent amounts of fentanyl coming in through Canada.

Some of the places are like a small African country from which US imported diamonds but otherwise the country is too poor to buy US goods. Similar story as Vietnam, which agreed to drop tariffs but got hit with 46%. Well now a lot of manufacturing has been set up there in the past few years. But the people there do not have the purchasing power to buy too many US goods.

In any event, they've given mixed messages about negotiations. Sometimes they say these are permanent and there won't be negotiations and other times they say they're open to negotiations. This is within the last couple of days.
 
explanade said:
Negotiations seem unlikely. One rationale for tariffs vs. Canada and Mexico is fentanyl. There are negligent amounts of fentanyl coming in through Canada.

Some of the places are like a small African country from which US imported diamonds but otherwise the country is too poor to buy US goods. Similar story as Vietnam, which agreed to drop tariffs but got hit with 46%. Well now a lot of manufacturing has been set up there in the past few years. But the people there do not have the purchasing power to buy too many US goods.

In any event, they've given mixed messages about negotiations. Sometimes they say these are permanent and there won't be negotiations and other times they say they're open to negotiations. This is within the last couple of days.
Click to expand...
What is frustrating is that these so-called "tariffs" are not tariffs at all, but rather are trade deficit tax (have a look at the White House's own description of how the "tariff" was calculated. A number of the countries targeted for "tariffs" by the government do not have tariffs on US goods at all but they have been hit, none the less.

To answer the OP, I am holding tight on my investments for the long the long term and not adjusting my portfolio right now, although I may need to watch some large item spending in the short term. My retirement timing has been less than optimal. I originally retired at the start of COVID (Stock Market hit #1), went back to work part time for 3 years at the end of COVID and now have just jumped off the work treadmill this month (Stock Market Hit #2). Fortunately, my savings drawdown will be low, but it may impact timing of when I BTD!
 
jcfradio said:
My retirement timing has been less than optimal. I originally retired at the start of COVID (Stock Market hit #1), went back to work part time for 3 years at the end of COVID and now have just jumped off the work treadmill this month (Stock Market Hit #2).
Click to expand...
Do us, and it would seem yourself, a favor and this time stay retired. Don’t need a "Stock Market Hit #3! ;-)
 
I don't think there's any real logic behind the current tariff policy, it feels like a self-inflicted wound. To borrow a couple of analogies, it's like kneecapping yourself halfway through a marathon or burning down your house to cook a steak. Our trade imbalance is largely of our own making, driven by the decision to offshore manufacturing in pursuit of lower costs and higher profits. I just don’t see large-scale manufacturing returning to the U.S. as it's being pitched especially not if it means paying higher labor costs to produce goods that will end up even more expensive. I also don’t understand the rationale behind applying tariffs based solely on trade imbalances, the methodology doesn’t seem to make sense. Hope people smarter than me have this sorted out as a 10% market drop in two days is a bit worrisome.
 
pb4uski said:
But if the end game was to force some of our trading partners like the EU, Canada and Mexico to agree to lower existing tariffs in exchange for US not imposing higher tariffs on them, why couldn't that be achieved through aggressive negotiations behind closed doors and avoid all this angst?
Click to expand...
Why hasn't it been achieved over the last 30 years? I mean, if all it takes is negotiations, should have been easy, right? *shrug*
Jerry1 said:
If only I could believe that it would be used to actually reduce the deficit. I’ve said before, if this is the start of paying the piper for our years of deficit spending, so be it. I’d rather do it now than wait for a catastrophic collapse. Unfortunately, I believe the goal, as was mentioned, is to reduce trade imbalance. I don’t think they have their eye on reducing the deficit.
Click to expand...
"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said he believes the Trump administration can fix debt, government spending, and economic growth challenges. He has advocated for a plan to reduce the federal deficit by 3%, boost GDP growth by 3%, and produce an additional 3 million barrels of oil daily by 2028."
explanade said:
In any event, they've given mixed messages about negotiations. Sometimes they say these are permanent and there won't be negotiations and other times they say they're open to negotiations. This is within the last couple of days.
Click to expand...
Negotiations are the most obvious result of the tariffs. Unsurprisingly, that is exactly what is happening!

"A phone call between US President Donald Trump and Vietnam’s leader To Lam is set to “cool down” the temperature and allow further negotiations, with the Southeast Asian nation bearing the brunt of America’s sweeping tariffs, according to observers.

The talk between the two leaders is also a clear indication that under the transactional approach embraced by the Trump administration, tariffs are negotiable.

During the call described by Trump as “very productive”, both sides agreed to discuss a deal to remove the 46 per cent tariffs imposed on Vietnam."

www.scmp.com

Trump and Vietnam’s leader To Lam closer to tariff deal after ‘productive’ call

The US president says he spoke with Vietnamese leader To Lam, who is seeking to avoid punishing 46 per cent duties.
www.scmp.com www.scmp.com
 
My angst: critical industries with the vast majority of their production overseas, ie: chips/semiconductors, pharma/med supplies, defense/aerospace components, electronics, chemicals, ship building, etc.
Globalization has made Americans wealthier -and more vulnerable.
Any plan/effort to address this will have some degree of collateral damage/hardships for U.S. citizens.
The US has been asleep at the wheel -now the tariffs are considered to be steering into a tree.

Not an economist, but don't think tariffs are a solution looking for a problem.
Shock and awe tactics can be debated, but IMO something had to be done.
Are better plans being proposed? Would be more productive than only attacking this one.
Willing to allow this to play out to see the end game. Good surprises may result.
 
marko said:
Has there been a change in forum policy?
Click to expand...
No, there has been no change in forum policy.

There has been a change in the environment that affects us all, so we’re doing our best to allow a discussion that is inherently political. It’s not easy, but the vast majority of forum members have been keeping a civil tone, avoiding partisanship, and keeping the discussions focused and on track. Hopefully the others see this and follow the example.
 
MichaelB said:
No, there has been no change in forum policy.

There has been a change in the environment that affects us all, so we’re doing our best to allow a discussion that is inherently political. It’s not easy, but the vast majority of forum members have been keeping a civil tone, avoiding partisanship, and keeping the discussions focused and on track. Hopefully the others see this and follow the example.
Click to expand...
I agree and applaud that. My question was based on the comment of "(yes the comment is political but) that view won't get your hand spanked here". Inappropriate IMO. Implies conditional standards.
 
Last edited:
Qs Laptop said:
India (ninth largest exporter to US) and Vietnam (the sixth-biggest exporter to the US) are already talking to the US.

The gamble is that countries lower their tariffs and the US lowers their tariffs on these countries and then the countries that acquiesced don't buy our products. That would be the ultimate in calling the US's bluff.
Click to expand...
A big part of the problem is that these are not reciprocal tariffs.
The formula used is:

US Exports-US Imports/US imports.

The exception is for countries we have a trade surplus with. Those countries all get a flat 10% tariff.

As others have said, this is all about equalizing trade deficits.
Tariffs on US products may play a role in a trade deficit. But this oversimplified formula applied to everyone (except countries with a surplus) is … nonsensical.
 
marko said:
I agree and applaud that. My question was based on the comment of "(yes the comment is political but) that view won't get your hand spanked here". Inappropriate IMO. Implies conditional standards.
Click to expand...
This thread is about tariffs. If you or anyone else has concerns about specific forum moderation policy please address them offline.
 
Zathras said:
As others have said, this is all about equalizing trade deficits.
Click to expand...

Is it though? I've heard at least three reasons for the tariffs.

1. Tariffs are imposed on Canada and Mexico because they are not stopping the flow of fentanyl in the U.S.

2. Tariffs are imposed because other countries "have been ripping us off for decades."

3. Tariffs are imposed because the US needs to address the trade imbalance it has with other countries.
 
Mod Note:

These are challenging times. ER.org strives to remain a partisan-free forum for everyone to discuss impacts to their retirement. Actions taken by any administration are inherently political, but a vast majority of our members want to discuss topics that impact retirement finances without getting into ideology and taking partisan shots and swipes. We have always allowed discussions that stay within these parameters, and hope to continue to do so.

For those who are interested, from our community rules:
Although we don't have a laundry list of inappropriate topics, discussion of subjects such as politics (unless directly related to early retirement), gun rights, religion and abortion rarely end well. For this reason the moderation team may close or remove discussions of these topics as well as any other topic deemed to be inappropriate, particularly if the tone has become disruptive.​

Of note, also from our rules, we do not debate moderation decisions in threads:
Complaints about a moderator's decision regarding a particular post are not to be made in posts; instead send a private message to a moderator.​

The mod team have diverse viewpoints and rest assured, your "side", whatever that is, is well represented. Each of us advocate for removing posts that we might personally agree with, happens every day. Where we are united is ensuring we do not allow disruptive content to spoil discussions for the vast majority of those who want to avoid such conflicts.

For those who wish to read further, the complete Community Rules can be found via a link at the bottom of every page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Route246
  • Locked
FIRE Members - Are any of you pro-tariff?
7 8 9
Alan
Alan
schrodingerscat
BDCs May 2025
Koolau
Koolau
aja8888
The Ongoing Collapse of the Western Car Industry, by Roger Boyd, Jan 2025
2 3
Walt34
Walt34
K
Why a Strategic Currency Reserve is a very bad idea, etc.
indiajust
I
M
Paul Revere, a Nobel Prize and a #1Hit Song
Thomasbob
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom