[Official] US announces new tariffs on most countries

Their persinal feelings towards President Trump is the core motivator for their views.

Indeed so. And what is overlooked is that these tariffs have a political, not just an economic purpose. It is by that measure that they will ultimately be judged.

Good piece by William Hague explaining the misstep Trump is taking regarding China.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250417011812/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/trumps-policy-on-china-is-a-strategic-blunder-0x5j7nk3r

People have short and selective memories.
Biden hits Chinese electric cars and solar cells with higher tariffs 15 May 2024
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-69004520
' Mr Biden on Tuesday vowed that he would not let China "unfairly control the market" for electric vehicles and other key goods, including batteries, computer chips and basic medical supplies. "If the pandemic taught us anything - we need to have a secure supply of essentials here at home," he said.'
EU hits China with big taxes in electric car sales battle 4 October 2024
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly20n4d0g9o
'Tariffs on electric cars made in China are set to rise from 10% to up to 45% for the next five years, but there have been concerns such a move could raise electric vehicle (EV) prices for buyers.The decision, which split EU member states such as France and Germany, risks sparking a trade war between Brussels and Beijing, which has condemned the tariffs as protectionist.'
So tariffs are fine. Unless they are imposed by Mr Trump.
I'm being sarcastic, of course. These tariffs were on a much smaller scale, and carefully targeted. But they are tariffs none the less and call into question the argument that tariffs are always wrong.
As I said in my previous post, some of President Trump's tariffs have been rushed, some are tactical and some will stick.
To borrow a line from the first of the BBC reports: "It comes down to a political economy calculus rather than what makes the most economic sense or what's most affordable for US consumers."
The intriguing question is whether US consumers are ready, to use your words, "to stay the course". I suspect that one reason why the Trump administration is moving so rapidly in this and other policy areas is that they fully expect to lose control of Congress, mid-term (a common fate of US presidencies). We'll no doubt see many of the "Liberation Day" tariffs give way to "deals" of one kind or another. But the ones that remain may - as most commentators seem to agree - bring about that shift in the world economic order (shorter supply chains, more regional trade) that the Trump administration seeks. And with that, will come the division of the world into more clearly defined spheres of influence such as we saw in the immediate post-war era.

Indeed so. And what is overlooked is that these tariffs have a political, not just an economic purpose. It is by that measure that they will ultimately be judged.

Yes. It’s interesting that some people are quick to condemn a policy from their opponent, when it does not result in immediate perfection but would want time for their own side’s policies.

Good piece by William Hague explaining the misstep Trump is taking regarding China.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250417011812/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/trumps-policy-on-china-is-a-strategic-blunder-0x5j7nk3r

Again, what?
Much of the criticism is that Trump's tariffs are a political policy rather than an economic one.

Good piece by William Hague explaining the misstep Trump is taking regarding China.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250417011812/https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/trumps-policy-on-china-is-a-strategic-blunder-0x5j7nk3r

Oh, that's just someone else whose persinal feelings towards President Trump is the core motivator for their views.
Apparently.

An excellent article and a worthy contribution to the debate.
What this piece by former UK Foreign Secretary Lord Hague (from a traditional centre-right standpoint) is essentially saying is not that the tariff policy is misguided per se, but that the timing and mode of implementation is wrong.
'While Trump is right to think that the US needs to become less dependent on China’s exports, the better way to have gone about it would have been to raise some tariffs slowly, keeping allies onside, while building up American ability to cope without Chinese production of key materials and technologies.'
In other words:
'He (President Trump) has started a trade war before he is in a position to win it.'
How accurate this turns out to be depends in part on the willingness of the US consumer to "stay the course"and how effective the "Liberation Day" tariffs on other countries (including those that are obviously tactical) are in bringing about the desired results.
It also depends on the outcome of the US administration's other policies, such as the rapprochement with Russia.
This whole episode serves to highlight the limits of sovereignty in a deeply interconnected world: a world that has, perhaps, become a little too interconnected for its own good.
Having heard from the centre-right (and in most of my posts, from the left) it is well worth examining the tariff policy by reference to its point of origin, the "New Right":
A New Trade Paradigm - American Compass
https://americancompass.org/a-new-trade-paradigm/
'Over the past three decades, free trade advocates have argued that further opening U.S. markets would only expose low-value manufacturing to foreign competition, allowing the United States to focus on advanced industries. That is not what happened. America’s advanced technology manufacturing dropped from a surplus of $38 billion in 1991 to a deficit of $299 billion in 2024. High-technology exports have even fallen as a share of U.S. manufactured exports from 30% in 2007 to 22% in 2023...
The decline of American manufacturing and its corresponding rise in China has created significant threats to U.S. national security...
While many on the upper end of the income scale have benefited from the United States’ broken trade policy, the typical male worker now needs to work the equivalent of 62 weeks to attain the same middle-class security for a family of four that 40 weeks of work would have delivered in 1985. Extensive research by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordan Hanson has shown the free trade paradigm has erased millions of manufacturing jobs and devastated thousands of communities over the last twenty five years.'
And that's what it's all about. Not the cost of buying a pair of shoes or a smartphone.

Emphatically not. Lord Hague is critical of the way the policy has been implemented. There is no personal animosity towards President Trump shown in the article.

"What this piece is essentially saying is not that the tariff policy is misguided per se"
Er, yes it is.
"but that the timing and mode of implementation is wrong"
So, apart from what he is doing and when he is doing it, it's fine? 🤣
That's like me saying my golf drive is all good, apart from the distance and the direction.
It's hilarious watching Trump apologists trying to polish his turds.

*whoosh!*

To quote once more:
'...the better way to have gone about it would have been to raise some tariffs slowly, keeping allies onside, while building up American ability to cope without Chinese production of key materials and technologies.'
In other words it is not the use of tariffs that is mistaken but the timing and mode of the implementation.

Is that all you can think of to say? Hardly a worthy contribution to the debate.

Did you think that all the critics of Trumps Tariff policy aren't aware that tariffs have been used before, or claim they should never be used? 😂

Once again, no one has claimed that tariffs are always bad and should never be used (although I appreciate why you would focus on such a flimsy straw man).
So what Hague is actually saying is that Trump's tariff policy is the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Keep polishing! Plenty of elbow grease. 🤣

Physician, heal thysef!