I read somewhere that part of the rationale is preventing countries from using other countries as a way to bypass import taxes, which does make sense if your goal is to force everyone to negotiate. Although why putting some of the largest rates on countries that almost don’t export while keeping some huge players at 10%, that I have no clue. It’d just make madagascans negotiate with some countries with lower rate, if they intended to keep the product flowing into the US..
The other theory is some of those smaller countries would accept becoming “vassal states” and house US military in exchange for more favorable terms. Madagascar and Falkland are strategically positioned, so maybe that’s the play?
> Although why putting some of the largest rates on countries that almost don’t export while keeping some huge players at 10%, that I have no clue.
Israel got 17% but Iran got 10%.
> Madagascar and Falkland are strategically positioned, so maybe that’s the play?
1. LOL: there is no "play" here. Trade deficit = bad, so must be stopped.
2. Falkland is under the UK—like Diego Garcia—and so there is no new alliance to be formed.
BTW, Diego Garcia also got hit with tariffs, even though the only inhabitants are UK and US military personnel. There's a bunch of B-2s there right now:
* https://www.twz.com/air/b-2-spirits-amassed-on-diego-garcia-...
* https://newrepublic.com/post/193523/donald-trump-tariffs-us-...
Iran can’t trade with the US, other than some pottery and crafts, which amount for a million/year tops. Same with Russia - it’s not on the tariffs list, but it doesn’t need to be anyway. It’s good shock value, gets everyone talking about that
I don’t think any of this will work favorably to the US, just trying to think what their internal logic might be. The econ guys (Bessent & the other one the name escapes me) wrote a lot about this “3 step plan” in the past few years. So far they’re playing the step 1 exactly as written…
> I don’t think any of this will work favorably to the US, just trying to think what their internal logic might be.
The "internal logic" is that Trump thinks trade deficits are bad. That's it. He's been going on about this since the 1980s:
* https://archive.is/https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-forged...
* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/pol...
Every justification for that "logic" is rationalization for the decision Trump has already made.
This whole thing isn’t his idea. Trump is a hollow shell with an ill fitting suit - his entire policy is done by people like Bannon or Miller, and now Bessent, Musk and Miran
> This whole thing isn’t his idea.
There are many (forthcoming) policies that aren't his idea and he doesn't care about:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
I think tariffs are his thing.
> if they intended to keep the product flowing into the US.
At which point, the product costs much more to US consumers.
I'm not sure there's a single other example in nature where select members of a species get special rewards for making everything harder for everyone else in their communities.
That’s a good thing for corporations, which has always been the key party line for the republicans. As long as the public is good paying higher prices, profits will grow