The trade and economy mega-thread

[superchuck500]

Is there a trade deal with China? Is it really a deal or just a pull-back to status quo ante? Is Trump advancing US interests in this well-executed trade battle plan or was this poorly conceived from the start . . . and harmful?

I think the jury's still out, but I haven't seen that the Chinese are offering much in compromise - and it's not even clear if there's going to be an agreement. But it's clear they are working on something and I'm sure Trump will sell it as the greatest trade deal ever. The proof will be in the details.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

will everything around the world go down like prices from 1900s to 1960s when 2026 begins

only time will tell

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The shift from agrarian to industrial resulted in a host of things that included improving health via water and sewage treatment. It also resulted in population shirts that still go on today. What it did that was unique was create mass employment possibilities that could not exist previously. The shift to digital which includes increased automation will be work destruction on steroids. The new technologies will not employ labor on the scale that the burst of industrialization did around the Civil War and after.

We are already seeing the political economy splitting. The top quintile in general and 1-.01% in particular will be served and are being served by “superstar” service people. Hairdressers, personal assistants, lawn/garden/building maintenance people, for example, who have generated connections and demonstrated their abilities will command high wages. The rest of the population will have to make do. This is the beginning of the endgame in terms of raising people out of poverty. The political economy called “capitalism” which is a misnomer results ALWAYS in this split. The so-called “golden age of capitalism” was not actually capitalism. It was government with levers, hands, guardrails and regulations determining the processes of economic transactions. It was also an outlier. Capitalism always required completely untouched markets so, in reality, much like there never has been a communist country so has there never been a fully capitalist country.

Creative destruction…Schumpeter may have talked about the impacts but zealots do not care about those impacts.

I agree. Major advances solve some previous problems while also making some old problems worse and creating unique problems of their own. "You must work to survive" will either have to be replaced or none of us will survive, not even the filthy rich.

The .01 percent will not survive the rest of the world turning their pitchforks and torches on them and that's what will happen if "you must work to survive and thrive" is not replaced with another means for people to get what they need to survive and thrive.

 

[Dragon]

I agree. Major advances solve some previous problems while also making some old problems worse and creating unique problems of their own. "You must work to survive" will either have to be replaced or none of us will survive, not even the filthy rich.

The .01 percent will not survive the rest of the world turning their pitchforks and torches on them and that's what will happen if "you must work to survive and thrive" is not replaced with another means for people to get what they need to survive and thrive.

I agree with much of the diagnosis about technological shifts and their disruptive effects, but I think the conclusion that we’re heading inevitably toward mass exclusion isn’t universal. Europe offers a counterexample that’s worth paying attention to. Across much of the EU, there is massive public investment in a dynamic labor market, where education, reskilling, and job transitions are treated as a normal and ongoing part of adult life—not a personal failure or an afterthought.


The assumption is that at almost any given time, people are either working or being upgraded to work in new areas where labor is actually needed. Learning new trades, shifting expertise, and continuous education are lifelong tasks, and they’re actively supported by government spending and policy. That creates a three-way dynamic relationship between employers, employees, and the state, rather than leaving individuals alone to absorb the shocks of automation and digitalization.


This doesn’t deny creative destruction or the real risks of inequality—it acknowledges them and tries to manage them. The “golden age” wasn’t pure capitalism, as noted; it was capitalism with guardrails. The question now isn’t whether work will change (it will), but whether societies choose to replace “you must work to survive” with “we will help you to be able to stay current in the labor market.” Without that collective choice, the pitchfork scenario becomes far more likely. With it, technological progress doesn’t have to mean social collapse.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I agree with much of the diagnosis about technological shifts and their disruptive effects, but I think the conclusion that we’re heading inevitably toward mass exclusion isn’t universal. Europe offers a counterexample that’s worth paying attention to. Across much of the EU, there is massive public investment in a dynamic labor market, where education, reskilling, and job transitions are treated as a normal and ongoing part of adult life—not a personal failure or an afterthought.


The assumption is that at almost any given time, people are either working or being upgraded to work in new areas where labor is actually needed. Learning new trades, shifting expertise, and continuous education are lifelong tasks, and they’re actively supported by government spending and policy. That creates a three-way dynamic relationship between employers, employees, and the state, rather than leaving individuals alone to absorb the shocks of automation and digitalization.


This doesn’t deny creative destruction or the real risks of inequality—it acknowledges them and tries to manage them. The “golden age” wasn’t pure capitalism, as noted; it was capitalism with guardrails. The question now isn’t whether work will change (it will), but whether societies choose to replace “you must work to survive” with “we will help you to be able to stay current in the labor market.” Without that collective choice, the pitchfork scenario becomes far more likely. With it, technological progress doesn’t have to mean social collapse.

Glad Europe is doing a better job of adapting. The prevailing thought is that we will reach a point when automation creates a situation in which there isn't enough human labor needed for everyone to have a job to earn income. Is Europe doing anything to prepare for the day that there is not enough work to go around? We should make sure people have their basic needs met, even if there isn't any work for them to do. That's the point I was making.

 

[Dragon]

Glad Europe is doing a better job of adapting. The prevailing thought is that we will reach a point when automation creates a situation in which there isn't enough human labor needed for everyone to have a job to earn income. Is Europe doing anything to prepare for the day that there is not enough work to go around? We should make sure people have their basic needs met, even if there isn't any work for them to do. That's the point I was making.

In some ways, Europe already is preparing. One clear trend is a gradual redistribution of work rather than simply eliminating it. The standard workweek has been reduced over time—while 37 hours is still common, many companies have moved to 35 hours without any loss in productivity. Paid vacation is also significantly longer: five weeks is the legal minimum in many countries, and six weeks is common in practice.

In addition, several countries and companies are actively experimenting with four-day workweeks instead of five, again with promising results in terms of productivity and employee well-being.

Another important factor is continuous education. Many employers offer 2–4 weeks per year of paid time for skills upgrades, ranging from onsite or offsite courses to professional certifications and even college-level education. Companies increasingly recognize that investing in employees—just like investing in machinery—pays off through higher productivity, greater flexibility, and better employee retention, which in turn reduces recruitment and training costs.

While this doesn’t fully solve the question of a future with significantly less work available, it does show that Europe is taking practical steps toward sharing work more evenly and ensuring people can maintain skills, stability, and dignity even as automation increases.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The US government has slashed proposed tariffs on Italian pasta that would have almost doubled the cost of many brands for shoppers.

Donald Trump had threatened to impose tariffs as high as 92% on Italian pasta companies, after accusing 13 producers including Barilla, La Molisana and Pastificio Lucio Garofalo of selling their products at unfairly low prices.

Italy is estimated to be responsible for $770m-worth (approximately £570m) of annual pasta sales to the US.


On Thursday, Italy’s government said the US Department of Commerce (DoC) had reviewed the proposed tariffs and reduced them to a range of between 2% and 14%.

Any additional duties on the Italian pasta makers will come on top of the 15% tariff that Trump has placed on most goods imported from the EU into the US. However, the DoC said that it had not yet made a final decision on the level of duties that will be imposed on the pasta producers.

It said that a preliminary analysis published earlier this week showed that Italian pasta makers had “addressed many of [the DoC’s] questions”.

The final results of its analysis will be announced on 12 March, at which time a final decision on import duties will be made.

The US has said that the 13 companies it is targeting account for roughly 16% of pasta imported from Italy to the US. Coldiretti, Italy’s agribusiness association, had warned that the tariffs would be a “fatal blow” to the country’s pasta industry.……..

Italian pasta makers win reprieve from Trump tariffs

US cuts proposed levies to between 2% and 14% despite accusing Italian producers of selling at unfairly low prices

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump has said tariff revenue may allow Americans to stop paying income taxes. The math doesn't add up

The federal income tax brought in about $2.4 trillion in 2024, which is more than 14 times what Trump’s second-term tariffs are generating.

www.pbs.org

 

[MT15]

 

[efil4]

Joe Kernan is a Trump shill.

"cant say definitively say if this affects the independence of the fed"

 

[coldseat]

Joe Kernan is a Trump shill.

"cant say definitively say if this affects the independence of the fed"

Is he talking about the Epstein-Trump Memorial Ballroom?

 

[efil4]

Nah Donald. You are screwed.

 

[MT15]

He’s obviously flailing around like a nincompoop.

 

[efil4]

 

[efil4]

Polymarket now has the odds of USSCOJ ruling AGAINST Trump tariffs at 73% tomorrow

Trump will lose his mind if they do.

 

[efil4]

 

[MT15]

Polymarket now has the odds of USSCOJ ruling AGAINST Trump tariffs at 73% tomorrow

Trump will lose his mind if they do.

This post is correct. Trump’s argument to SCOTUS is an indictment of his tariff policy.

 

[efil4]

This post is correct. Trump’s argument to SCOTUS is an indictment of his tariff policy.

he was attempting to use the "too big to fail" narrative

unfortunately for him, its a bit different.

 

[efil4]

Make China Great Again