Trump Policies & Actions Mega-Thread

[Twentyfirst]

There needs to be a  way to know what every item, car, house cost before and after the new policies

[Breakingthewall]

18 hours ago, zazen said:

A good video on Trump tariffs:

A Balaji take from X:

“DOLLAR INFLATION IS GLOBAL TAXATION

There is just a fundamental misconception about what the USA actually is.

It is the seat of a global financial empire (or was). It makes its money by printing it. For example, it printed $1.25T for just one purchase back in 2010.

Do you know many Nikes you’d have to sell to make a trillion dollars?!?

The reason the American Empire had the right to print a trillion dollars at its whim is because it was managing the global financial system for everyone. So it had the right to impose global taxation via dollar inflation. Every time it printed $1T, that was divided by the 6B+ direct and indirect dollar holders worldwide, not just the 330M Americans.

In other words: the whole world paid the US to run the empire. And got diluted down (aka taxed) every time the US printed another dollar. That’s why Milton Friedman said inflation is taxation without legislation.

Anyway — the USA could impose global taxation via dollar inflation because it was a stable jurisdiction for multinational business, due to Delaware. It issued visas for scientists and workers from all over the world. It didn’t have psychos bombing cars, shooting CEOs, or blocking roads. It advocated free trade, respected property rights, and only sanctioned rogue states.

Now all that is gone. The US is no longer a neutral arbiter of the rules-based order that it once set up for its own benefit. And so it’s going to lose that money-printing power. But before it goes, you should understand what it’s losing.

Because the money-printing business model was way, way, way more profitable than working for a living. Yes, it had long-term negative consequences, but in the short and medium-term (meaning: multiple decades) it had absolutely no peer.

Exiting the money-printing business to return to the abandoned manufacturing business is likely not even possible because of the societal instability such a sharp decline in living standards will cause.

Anyway, the people who ran American Empire could have spent this money more wisely. They could have taken far better care of their own citizens, and dropped fewer bombs on non-citizens. Then they wouldn’t be at this juncture.

But *how* it spent the trillions is distinct from the indisputable fact that the US printed trillions in the first place. So the American Empire as an entity wasn’t being ripped off by the world, especially by countries like Vietnam.

More the contrary.”

Great analysis, the decline of the United States was inevitable; supremacy cannot be maintained solely with the dollar. It has been tried; it is a mafia strategy supported by force. Libya was destroyed by its Dirham Gold project, and it worked. The war in Ukraine was planned to delay the fall by nullifying Russia, causing its dismemberment and plundering it, but it hasn't worked.

Now Trump is attempting something impossible that will blow up in his face, and when it does, the only solution will be war. The United States has military strength; i bet that Trump is considering something as crazy as war against China. The positive thing is that it is not viable, since the United States would be absolutely crushed. The situation is more tense than it seems. Now everything seems to be Trump and his antics, but when the United States enters a serious recession, it won't be so funny.

[Frylock]

Trump himself doesn't really frighten me, he feels like a figurehead. It's what happens after he bites the dust. Maybe the Republican party will be fractured enough so that their power declines. But more than likely, they'll rally around another despot and continue toward the path that we've been heading down.

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Frylock said:

But more than likely, they'll rally around another despot and continue toward the path that we've been heading down.

[WikiRando]

There is a lot of talk about Trump devilry and corruption which is quite obvious and has been discussed by Leo and actualized for years. I don't have much to add to that right now, but I don't think it's an unimportant discussion.

In fact I think it's the most important discussion. 

However since this is the policy thread, having listened to experts and studied markets and geopolitics a lot for many years, I would like to talk about the actual economic policy of tariffs.

The common thought (at least in many less nuanced circles, idk about here) is that free trade = good for growth, and protectionism is stupid and hurts everyone. And I see this repeated endlessly. In a sense this is true of course.

However, I have seen very few people, only in certain economic circles, make a specific connection, that we already have proof that strategic protectionism works to boost a country's economy. And that example is of course none other than China, who in 2024 generated a record trillion dollar surplus. Yes, trillion. And that is while they're trying to tone down their calculations by using non-standard metrics that make the surplus look even less than it is (probably to draw less ire from the US).

The point is that the economic policy of tariffs and more protectionism, while causing short term hurt, to me is sound. It's not some crazy new Trump idea, it's already a thing. It already works for the world's 2nd power, China. That's literally exactly what China does. They are strategically protectionistic, they give their own manufacturing hard competitive edges, do all the manufacturing domestically, then export it to the world, and run monster surpluses. In a sense, China already is the living proof that this old idea of free trade = good , protectionism = bad for the economy, is quite simplistic and false. 

Which brings us back to the big picture that we cannot ignore, the ego and the devilry, because at the end of the day, this is all that this whole policy is really. I am not saying it's anything enlightened or special.

But I just thought it was interesting that I haven't seen many people make this connection to the Chinese model, or understand why Trump has the policy support from many academics, smart people & economists.

Mostly what I hear is Trump's policies are unhinged and destructive. And well, they absolutely are. But I think the nuance here is that tariffs are actually not fundamentally an economically unsound or unhinged policy in the long term, if the goal is just to bring manufacturing back into the US and boost the US economy. In fact, this has already been proven to be a highly successful economic model to make lots of money off of, and run fat surpluses, which of course, Trump loves.

Edited Friday at 09:19 PM by WikiRando

[Frylock]

6 minutes ago, WikiRando said:

And well, they absolutely are, but I think the nuance here is that tariffs are actually not fundamentally an economically unsound policy in the long term, if the goal is to bring manufacturing back into the US and boost the US economy. This has already been proven as a highly successful model.

The issue is how this is being implemented. It takes longterm planning and commitment, not just a quick signing of the pen and expecting manufacturing jobs and plants to magically spring up overnight. There's ways to ease into it, but this approach is basically just setting the forest on fire without a proper plan of reforestation.

[Lyubov]

Apparently the emperor has no clothes in Washington. Everyone against this madness (tariffs) is afraid to speak out. 
 

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/trump-tariffs-fear-lobby-business-congress-00006608

[WikiRando]

@Frylock That's a good point and speaks to the Trump Admistration's obvious incompetence, but also just to the nature of the term limits in a American system, as opposed to, say a system that's more stable longer term like UAE, Singapore or China. No US administration has the luxury of being a long term steward of anything. They kinda just have to rip the band aid off. 

[WikiRando]

@Breakingthewall

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Now Trump is attempting something impossible that will blow up in his face, and when it does, the only solution will be war. The United States has military strength; i bet that Trump is considering something as crazy as war against China. The positive thing is that it is not viable, since the United States would be absolutely crushed. The situation is more tense than it seems. Now everything seems to be Trump and his antics, but when the United States enters a serious recession, it won't be so funny.

How would the US be crushed? The US has had an energy revolution (shale oil) to become an energy superpower, has energy independence while China doesn't, more advanced military, better alliances, is geographically more isolated, despite all the talks of the dollar dominance failing, structurally, it is very much still in overwhelmingly in place with only weak competitors. The biggest growth boom phase of many BRICS nations, including China, in the 2000s is over, their growth has slowed, and even then, BRICS is not a military alliance. And just in terms of soft power, no matter how bad the US is with Trump, people and nations on the fence intuitively don't like devils like China and Russia and their buddies (N Korea, Iran) either, and we also know spirally they are just less developed. China's military has never been in war either. I think China would get crushed.

This is ignoring the fact that the US and USSR were way less economically intertwined, yet didn't go to war. Now with the greater interdependence, both countries will feel the mutual pain much faster which will incentivize them to play nicer. On top of that there is the MAD doctrine.

Not only would China get crushed, but the idea of war is overblown, IMO 
 

Edited Friday at 10:53 PM by WikiRando

[hoodrow trillson]

I think Trump may be a fucking retard.  

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, WikiRando said:

@Breakingthewall

How would the US be crushed? The US has had an energy revolution (shale oil) to become an energy superpower, has energy independence, more advanced military, better alliances, is geographically more isolated, despite all the talks of the dollar dominance failing, structurally, it is very much still in place with only weak competitors. The growth boom phase of many BRICS nations in the 2000s is over, their growth has slowed, and even then, BRICS is not a military alliance. And just in terms of soft power, no matter how bad the US is with Trump, people intuitively don't like devils like China and Russia and their buddies (N Korea, Iran) and their friends either. China's military has never been in war either. I think China would get crushed.

This is ignoring the fact that US and USSR were way less economically intertwined and didn't go to war. Now with the greater interdependence, both countries will feel the mutual pain much faster which will incentivize them to play nicer. On top of that there is the MAD doctrine.

Not only would China get crushed, but the idea of war is overblown, IMO 
 

I suppose a real war would be impossible today, plus atomic weapons are part of the equation. But in the hypothetical case of war, China has much greater industrial power and a similar technological level, as well as a mass of impoverished population that could see war as an opportunity, despite the risks. If china can produce 100 thousand missiles per month and US 20 thousand, who would win that war? And probably the difference would be greater and china could organize millions of people to work without salary very fast and US is not prepared for that. China has 800 millions in age of work, and very disciplined and obedient, like soldiers. 

Edited Friday at 10:51 PM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, hoodrow trillson said:

I think Trump may be a fucking retard.  

We have known that for 10 years now.

[Sea]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

I suppose a real war would be impossible today, plus atomic weapons are part of the equation. But in the hypothetical case of war, China has much greater industrial power and a similar technological level, as well as a mass of impoverished population that could see war as an opportunity, despite the risks. If china can produce 100 thousand missiles per month and US 20 thousand, who would win that war? And probably the difference would be greater and china could organize millions of people to work without salary very fast and US is not prepared for that. China has 800 millions in age of work, and very disciplined and obedient, like soldiers. 

China is behind technologically and hasn't proved themselves capable in any war. Specifically, the production of jet fighters and microchips has "trade secrets" which China is not privy to. Remember how Deepseek had to be trained on last generation chips?

The question is, will Americans be willing to fight a world war for Trump?

[WikiRando]

This is not to go into hypothetical war scenarios or debate who's better, but to understand their systemic positions as world powers. 

 

13 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

China has much greater industrial power and a similar technological level

China's manufacturing output is around 2 trillion to the USA's 1.85 trillion . The difference is nowhere as huge as what was described. Of course, that number is not the whole picture but 20k missiles to 100k or more is a bit extreme.  (Edit: correction) This is not taking into account other military alliances which China lacks. NATO is arming itself hard now that Trump told them to step it up, and of course the US is not gonna leave NATO either.

The population thing is fair, but just to point out, with NATO alone, thats about 1 billion people in the bloc not counting other US allies. Also, while CCP control is undeniably strong, Chinese people are also smart, independent minded rational humans not drones.

To the point about allies, although US allies are getting hit now, what allies does China have? Russia, N Korea, Pakistan maybe Iran, handful of small countries they coerced economically who are not really allies but pawns. You still can't compare it to the EU, UK, Australia, Saudi bloc, Japan, S Korea and other Asian allies. The difference is so night and day it's crazy

As mentioned, US with the shale revolution is a net exporter of energy, they're overflowing with it, while China relies on Russia and others for energy. Why do you think they are so assertive with Taiwan, the South China Sea and with Belt and Road? Because they know if the US and their allies blockades the shipping route to the Middle East, (Malacca Strait route being the mother of all chokepoints) they will be cut off from Middle Eastern energy which makes up 53% of their crude imports. Good luck running your economy with half your crude oil gone. Being a heavy energy importer is a massive vulnerability that the US has patched up for itself, and no longer has.

Furthermore, with bases in S Korea, Japan, and more, but really, all around the planet, the US is right at China's front porch. Why do you think China props up the Kim regime? To use it as a bargaining pawn, but also so that the US bases in S Korea don't end up right at China's door. Meanwhile, the mainland US sits an ocean away. Crossing the Taiwan Strait to invade Taiwan is China's challenge of the century, but now they have to cross the Pacific Ocean to invade the US? The strategic asymmetry is astounding here.

Then we have the dollar dimension and the fact that the US runs the financial system. That's not going anywhere in the next 30 years minimum. If people hate dollars then imagine how much they would hate yuan or BRICS currency. Even China itself is invested heavily in US financial instruments like Treasuries (~750 billion). They are enmeshed in the US dominated financial system. That's how they built their global, export based economy in the first place! They are trying rebel from the very system that makes them.

Overall, you made some strong cases for China's position but my perspective is that the US is so far ahead right now, it's not even close, even with Trump actively undermining it.

When you hear the "rise of China" narrative, the focus is mainly on the economic size. But  as you might see, there are far more dimensions to influence than just the raw size of the economy. And even then, growth in China has structurally slowed and matured, China's biggest years (2000s when economy tripled in size) are behind it. 

Edited yesterday at 12:36 PM by WikiRando

[Elliott]

@WikiRando tell that to Afghanistan.

[Breathe]

Well, this certainly does seem to be the actions taking place right now

https://bsky.app/profile/sarahkendzior.bsky.social/post/3lgsyqiznks2o

[DocWatts]

Yeah Trump is trying to intentionally collapse America's economy, but look how much cheaper GRO-CE-REI-S have gotten! 😆

Edited yesterday at 08:31 AM by DocWatts

[Yimpa]

20 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Yeah Trump is trying to intentionally collapse America's economy, but look how much cheaper GRO-CE-REI-S have gotten!

 

[zazen]

16 hours ago, WikiRando said:

Mostly what I hear is Trump's policies are unhinged and destructive. And well, they absolutely are. But I think the nuance here is that tariffs are actually not fundamentally an economically unsound or unhinged policy in the long term, if the goal is just to bring manufacturing back into the US and boost the US economy. In fact, this has already been proven to be a highly successful economic model to make lots of money off of, and run fat surpluses, which of course, Trump loves.

Nice comment to provide nuance. The key word you wrote earlier was that China is “strategically” protectionist.  Blanket tariffs are blunt, not strategic. It’s just taxing your own supply chain (inputs) that your producers depend on and can’t obtain domestically - China still imports inputs with low to no tariffs.

The US needs statecraft - a state competent at using a scalpel, whereas they are now using a hammer. But this is the fundamental issue at hand - instead of statecraft, which directs capital with a long time horizon in mind - we have a capital class seeking returns within a short time horizon. They don’t invest and build things as much as they do extract and trade things. Speculation is more profitable than investment and innovation, which requires longer time horizons.

In the West, capital directs the state rather than the other way round. It’s ideologically forbidden for a state to steward because that’s just “communism” creeping in. Never mind that the “good old days” weren’t built by libertarian free markets. They were statecrafted - postwar America was shaped by active government stewardship, not deregulated capital libertarians love to point to.

The problem today is that the solution should be state led, but it’s become state coerced - hoping that capital will do what only a sovereign nation can do: invest in its own future. But financialized capital operating in a casino economy, doesn’t usually think generationally, but quarterly.

Edited yesterday at 11:55 AM by zazen

[DocWatts]

You know things are getting bad when I'm seeing the tariffs being discussed on YouTube channels about Nintendo games that are normally apolitical.

All of those folks in the States who "aren't interested in politics" are going to find out that "politics is interested in them" when they're suddenly paying $700 for a $450 video game console because of the tariffs.

Edited yesterday at 09:58 AM by DocWatts