It’s about time those stupid fish eaters started paying their share. But I’m curious as to why an NHL team is living there and why they have to pay a tariff.
Not to mention tariffs on uninhabited islands.
Arguably not much impact, but definitely stupid.
Brian
Even if our dollar still had value there ain’t much reason to go. (Normal link followed by same limited gift link). Upshot: Four million fewer Canadian tourist visits projected.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2025/04/03/canada-travel-decline-united-states/
Well it took 9 years, but finally I get the kudos I deserve 
A good summary, but don’t forget also that it will mean other countries importing American shoes and getting the deficit down. It’s an exercise for the reader how manufacturing that requires lots of high-paying jobs can result in cheap goods, or if just everyone will buy american regardless of how expensive they are.
I read the explanation of the formula, and it was pretty much pure cargo cult science. It was written in the style of a mathematical or physics proof, but really only using the mouth noises. It’s meant to sound impressive to people who don’t understand math, but to real scientists and mathematicians, it’s obvious nonsense. Trying to come up with a fancy way to calculate (Y-X))/Y, where Y is US imports and X is US exports. And then they ignore it if they don’t get an answer they like, such as when the trade deficit favours the US.
The Seals haven’t been in the NHL since 1976.
It could also mean some countries just dropping US sales completely, at least for some products. If I’m a country with a 20% trade deficit, where 20% of my trade is in Product A, which doesn’t employ many people, and 80% in Product B, which does employ lots of people, it would make sense to just drop Product A from US trade, and wipe out that trade deficit, and thus the justifications for these tariffs.
I’d get together with the Product A people, and offer them various incentives to play along, combined with an appeal to patriotism. Help them find alternative customers, subsidize those new markets for the first several years, offer re-training if they need to lay people off, or grants and loans to help them re-tool for a different product if they don’t think the rest of the world will buy that much Product A, stuff like that.
Just let the Americans do without.
Hell, I’m half-tempted to encourage every country and/or company that has less than, say, 10% of their sales to the US to just do this - Drop The USA.
10% is a big enough chunk that the US will notice, but small enough that most companies could absorb it, particularly if you consider the offsetting benefit of not having to worry about complying with these new US rules, which will likely shift under your feet quite often. Just wash your hands of the whole mess.
It’s good you understood that by “the deficit” I meant “trade deficits with specific countries”; I didn’t phrase that well at all.
And agree that other countries could totally play with these numbers, but bear in mind we’re in fantasy land with all of this. For example, the US actually has a trade surplus in goods with the UK (it’s different with services, but services aren’t part of this round of tariffs). It didn’t matter – 
Hocus Pocus numbers to imply the UK is taking advantage of the US
Which is part of why I’m advocating just dropping as much US trade as you can afford. It’s not worth the headaches of trying to keep up with the manbaby’s latest tantrum tariffs.
I, and @Jas09 (and others) have mentioned that US labor rates, labor laws, and environmental protections are surely far in excess of what current tariffs will cost.
IMHO, the pain (where most American companies will leap into action and start buying raw land on which to build their Taj Mahal factories) is still a whole lot farther down the road. At least, so far.
And getting tariffs high enough to make this pencil would be like increasing the amperage being supplied to the jumper cables … that are being gingerly applied to the sensitive parts of the US consumer’s anatomy (ie, the wallet).
Much in the same way as rising commodity prices can make certain extraction methods economically viable that weren’t before, as a former Corporate VP, as I’m looking at all the factors involved in ‘reshoring’ my manufacturing to the US, I’m figuring out what % of my ‘labor’ I can possibly automate.
Because the cost of automation can be amortized over quite a long time and is a good hedge against the quixotic notion of increasing labor costs and rising standards of living.
I would expect any of these new Trump Casino Factories would have far less parking than one might otherwise imagine.
And Trump would have to do what he’s surely just aching to do anyway: eliminate nearly all environmental regulations that become significant line items on the Corporate Cost of Goods spreadsheet.
Make America Third World!!
All of the major news sites have the markets plunging as their main story. Out of curiosity, I went to Fox News and the main story was about how all countries were caving to Trumps bold move.
Top headline at FoxNews.com right now:
The “Dem rep” is Jared Golden from Maine, whose district only gave went 54 percent for Trump, 44 percent for Harris. I believe his district is the most heavily GOP of any held by a Democrat, so Golden has to talk like this or lose his job..Simply not news.
This. How to make manufacturing in the US more appealing? Cut the red tape of environmental regulations, labor laws, safety regulations…
Yeah! Get those kids back into the textile factories. Their little fingers are great for delicate work
That’s not even a joke – lots of states are loosening up their child labor laws to try to make up for the migrant shortages
(Y-X)/Y
= (Y^2-X^2)/Y(Y+X)
= 
φ(Y^2-X^2)/φY(Y+X)
= sin²x + cos²x * [ -(e^iπ)] *
φ(Y^2-X^2)/φY(Y+X)
= ( tan ξ ) / ξ (as ξ approaches 0) * the above…
Show off!
Yep. It’s also a great way to crank up the profit on for-profit prisons. Nobody’s ever cared how little prison work pays. We just need to incarcerate more people, for longer.
Just sayin’…. They barely tried.
At a 10,000 foot view, there’s something to that statement.
However, 1) it’s not clear why the Republican party should be the one to be concerned about reversing income inequality when there’s a whole other party just for promoting that cause, and 2) this is sort of like solving your problem with fruit flies by burning the house down, rather than by throwing away the old fruit on the counter. You can make upward mobility easier through things like the estate tax, minimum wage increases, IRS funding increases, etc. There’s no big mystery to this, and it’s not clear why - of all possible paths - you’d choose this one.