Economics

Minimum prices protect EU's major auto nations from too much Chinese EV plants in new EU countries. There are still likely to be some, especially if they can sell below minimum price at least in home country.

Higher Chinese profits can be deployed into charging infrastructure, services, and more model imports. More EVs.

While tariffs in EU weren't meant to be prohibitive (no EU models are at full tariff rate), the new policy would be friendlier, likely for purposes of having China make friendly EU business policies.

https://archive.ph/u1xg1

Tariffs will be lifted for microchips and computers on Monday.

Monday afternoon they’ll be back, but only for computers you can run Quake on.

On Tuesday there'll be new tariffs, but they won’t tell what'll be affected. Surprise!

Wednesday? We’ll have some new tariffs, but they’ll come in blue. Half the tariffs will also be gone. Which half? Who knows?

Thursday’s been cancelled, couldn’t afford it anymore.

There might or might not be some announcement on Friday. It might happen on Truth Social or on X. It might happen on market open or after market close. It’ll be made by a newly-created account. If you find it, you can profit for like 5 minutes. Thrilling!

doesn't include announcement that electronics/smartphones/computers are now exempt from "reciprocal" tariffs from all nations.

https://archive.ph/GPuk9

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/28009715

Generated Summary below:

Video Description:

Shereen Bhan joins Jeffrey D. Sachs, renowned Economics professor and bestselling author, to discuss the biggest headlines shaping the world today. From escalating US-China tensions to the economic implications, they dive into the complexities of the global landscape.

#risingbharatsummit #Tarrifs #Trump #USA #jeffreysachs #risingbharatsummit2025 #viksitbharat2047 #cnbctv18 #businessnews #businessnewstoday #businessnewsinenglish

Main Topic:

The video features an interview with economist Jeffrey Sachs, who discusses his concerns about President Trump's tariff policies and their potential to wreck the world economy.

Key Points:

• Trump's Policies are Destructive: Sachs argues that Trump's tariff policies are reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s and the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008, both of which led to global economic crises. He believes Trump is single-handedly damaging the world economy.
• Impact on the US Economy: Sachs suggests that the US is likely headed for a recession, potentially in 2025, due to declining consumer sentiment and disrupted supply chains.
• China's Response: Sachs anticipates that China will continue to reduce its holdings of US dollar assets and promote alternative payment systems through BRICS. He believes China will not be bullied and will take a more leadership role on the international stage.
• End of American Leadership: Sachs argues that Trump's policies mark the end of American leadership and the perception of the US as a global stabilizer.
• India's Position: Sachs advises India not to be played by the US or fall into an anti-China stance. He emphasizes the importance of normal relations between India and China and suggests India should focus on multilateral trade arrangements.
• Trump's Authority: Sachs criticizes Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, calling it unconstitutional and reckless. He also criticizes the corruption of the US political system.
• Congress's Role: Sachs expresses disappointment in Congress's failure to check Trump's power, but suggests that pressure from donors or court challenges could potentially provide a check.

Highlights:

• Sachs repeatedly emphasizes the severity of the situation, using strong language to describe Trump's policies as "wrecking the world economy."
• He highlights the potential for a US recession and the disruption of global supply chains.
• He warns India against aligning too closely with the US at the expense of its relationship with China.
• He criticizes the US political system as corrupt and Congress as a "doormat."
• He describes Trump's actions as "illegal" and "unconstitutional."

About Channel:

About CNBC-TV18: India's leading business news channel, CNBC-TV18 offers the most comprehensive coverage of businesses, the economy and the financial markets. Catch all your favourite shows, exclusive videos, big-ticket interviews and more here.

There's a metal bezel mod that I have on my casio watch that I got from china for $10, I would rather spend more money if it was made in a place with fair practices but it doesn't exist anywhere except aliexpress. There are a bunch of other items stuff like screen protectors and electronics that aren't made in the US for consumers to buy and that's a damn shame.

My point is, the tariffs are supposed to get us to manufacture more stuff in house and be more independent but I don't think it will work. If you look at China's playbook, they didn't impose massive tariffs on the world but still managed to be a global manufacturing warehouse out if nothing. China pretty much just subsidizes a bunch of their companies and gives them major tax breaks, along with giving them money if they sell internationally.

If the orange rapist wants to do this, then why doesn't he just copy the same thing, give incentives to manufacture goods instead of punishing consumers? The reason people aren't buying in house, is because we don't make anything in house.

Alternative link

Looking at the unintended consequences of tariffs and found this little tidbit.

Tariffs have long been a contentious tool of economic policy in the United States. Proponents argue they shield domestic industries from foreign competition, enabling growth and job creation. Yet, the historical record, as illuminated by scholars like Douglas Irwin in his study “Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth Century America,” demonstrates that tariffs often hinder economic progress more than they help.

During the late nineteenth century, the United States maintained some of the highest tariff rates in its history. While this period coincided with rapid industrial growth, Irwin argues that tariffs were not the primary driver of economic expansion. Instead, technological innovation, abundant natural resources, and a growing domestic market played far more significant roles. High tariffs distorted resource allocation, favoring inefficient industries over more competitive sectors. This misallocation led to higher consumer prices and suppressed overall economic welfare.