All of your pro-tariff points are ludicrous in the context of what actually happened, and do not reflect reality.
This is not some negotiation tactic. We know it's not a negotiation tactic, because: there are no stated goals for negotiations; there has been no attempt at negotiating; it would be impossible to negotiate with this many other countries at the same time; each target country feels only a little pain from the tariffs, US feels all of it, so US actually has the least leverage in any hypothetical negotiations. If this was about getting leverage for negotiations, it would be the stupidest imaginable way to go about it.
Tariffs would also be a very peculiar way of trying to do currency manipulation, because the first order effects will have the opposite direction of what you suggest. Import tariffs to reduce imports, which decreases the supply of the currency, which means the currency will appreciate. The USD weakening in response to these tariffs is more about second order effects around political risk (they demonstrate that not only is the leadership unstable and incompetent, but it also has near-dictatorial powers with no functioning checks and balances remaining). This makes US assets less appealing, especially for foreigners, who seriously need to start pricing in the risk of asset seizures. This leads to capital outflows, weakening the currency. If you just wanted those second order effects, there would be much more direct and less damaging ways of achieving it.
Your third point is just utterly irrelevant, because the tariffs do not further that goal. It's like saying that another goal is to turn the moon into cheese.
And as for China, that explanation would have made sense if the tariffs were applied only on China. But they weren't. Clearly that was not the actual goal. In fact, by announcing tariffs on the entire world, your leadership achieved the opposite of driving the rest of the world to cooperate more with China. (See the accelerated talks of a free trade agreement between China, Japan and Korea.)
And these were the best talking points you could find to defend the tariffs?
I'd accept the negotiation angle if the tariffs had been only threats with clear demands to avoid them. Trump could have demanded that your 3) be fulfilled by June, otherwise tariffs would apply. Instead we get tariffs with quick retaliation e.g. from China, and I still see no negotiation in place.
The problem in general is that we are all, the US Congress included, guessing what the goal is.
> The problem in general is that we are all, the US Congress included, guessing what the goal is.
I was guessing too until I took the time to investigate and found there is a method to the madness.
Now, did you really expect negotiation with China? Do you think that was the intention? You gotta think critically rather than just lazily or emotionally assume everything was a failure.
>Now, did you really expect negotiation with China? Do you think that was the intention?
I'm baffled by your comment. Didn't you just say that the tariffs are a negotiation tool?
I don't track geopolitics, especially the US, too closely, so I'm not the best person to go down that rabbit hole - especially since minds brighter than me here also struggle to understand what's happening. So I would appreciate if you explain what your mean instead of asking rethorical questions.
You've said "Instead we get tariffs with quick retaliation e.g. from China, and I still see no negotiation in place" and that was what I was responding to.
Regarding China's government there should be no expectation of negotiation because they have demonstrated over the years they will not play fair and shouldn't be trusted to do so now.
If you don't know that because you haven't tracked geopolitics, now you know, and can perhaps review your opinion about world trade, which is strongly related to geopolitics.
So, the goals are noble, the intentions are good, but the road to hell is the only realistic one?
Retaliatory tariffs aren't a risk, they are the present reality, see the market performance on Friday when China announced them. The relative lack of exports isn't the disease, it's just a symptom. Hoping to revive the American economy by means of exports and "negotiations" is a pipe dream, the numbers aren't there.
The stated policies and goals are meant to trigger and provoke, just like your post. They are designed for that purpose and no other. Trump may not be aware of it because he is in the business of sound bites and provocations which impair thinking. The real goals aren't hard to guess, they're printed on the price labels.
It ignores your points completely because they aren't true. The White House has explicitly, consistently, and in great detail said that the tariffs are not a negotiation tactic but a targeted measure aiming to reduce bilateral trade deficits. The idea that the tariffs are really about something else or might be removed in return for something else is, as far as I can tell, invented from whole cloth by cross-pressured Trump supporters who believe strongly in free trade but can't admit they don't support one of his policies.
