[Official] US announces new tariffs on most countries

Surely that's how world leaders also see it if, as you say, they are to retaliate.

From his first term
Trump's political positions, and his descriptions of his beliefs, have often been inconsistent. Politico has described his positions as "eclectic, improvisational and often contradictory." According to an NBC News count, over the course of his campaign Trump made "141 distinct shifts on 23 major issues." Fact-checking organizations reported that during the campaign, Trump made a record number of false statements and lies compared to other candidates, a pattern that has continued – and further increased – in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump
So pretty much failing to make known what he intends to do and a good degree of lying thrown in.

I will tell that to my Engineering Maths Professor. If a country’s trade with the US is 0.57%, to you, it is zero.
People can lie about their trade.

What are you on about? I have always seen you as a shrewd operator, one undisturbed by emotional BS. Yet, you surprise me with some of your writings.
Trade is a vicious game. Countries have laws, trade barriers, taxes and tarriffs that they use to meet their goals whether it is to protect local industry, bend other countries or blocs to their will or just be generally annoying.
When the EU has 20% import tariffs or taxes that impact foreign enterprises, people don't go crazy about it. But when President Trump puts programmes in place to protect American interests, they claim that it would end the world.
Warren Buffett once said that it's wise for investors “to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful.”

Surely not, as they haven't been behaving like that before.

I take it that you are attempting to cross reference my posts in this thread with comments that I made in another, which deals with an altogether different set of circumstances?
If so, you will recall that I reminded readers that Sir Keir Starmer's pronouncement that things would get worse before they got better was made after the election and not during the campaign. This was in the context of UK politicians from both main parties engaging in what the IFS termed a "conspiracy of silence".
The UK Labour Party was widely criticised for having few clearly defined commitments in regard to taxation, with the notable exception of VAT on private school fees. They did, however, promise not to increase National Insurance and subsequently broke that promise. Nor did they deem it necessary to say anything about cutting disability benefits in order to maintain their fiscal rules. They were, therefore, less than honest about their intentions.
Mr Tump, on the other hand, made his commitment to raise tariffs abundantly clear during the election campaign.

Trade, by definition, is a two (or more) way business. It requires negotiation and cooperation.
The idea that it is a "war" with "the victor" winning everything is nonsensical.
Please do some research.

You are ignoring the context in question: that is to say, the historical context to which I referred in Reply 82.
Slogans such as "make America great again" or "drain the swamp" strongly imply resetting a failed and corrupt system, do they not?
Mr Trump might be vilified by his opponents for many reasons, but failing to make known what he intends to do is not one of them.

Trade, by definition, is a two (or more) way business. It requires negotiation and cooperation.
The idea that it is a "war" with "the victor" winning everything is nonsensical.
Please do some research.

They were very clear they would not raise NI on working people.
So far, they haven't.

"My Engineering Maths Professor"
🤣
Behave!
Remember your original claim was, in response to me pointing out to you that "Zero is less than 1%" when you had argued that because it said "less than 1%", it therefore was not zero.
Zero IS less than 1%.
Basic maths.
You will notice that nowhere did I claim that all numbers below 1 are zero.
"People can lie about their trade."
Norfolk Island is a tiny community with no industry. It exports nothing. It's sole business with the outside world is tourism.
Jeez, the ridiculous lengths you will go to to avoid admitting that Trumps (or his magical super planners) got it wrong. As someone else pointed out "It's almost approaching performance art."

All of which demonstrates that the intention behind these tariffs is to bring about a reset of the world's economic order.
High risk it may be, but this is not something dreamed up on the spur of the moment.

But Trump neither "drained the swamp" nor "MAGAed".
In reality, he made the swamp deeper stinkier, and is continuing to do so in his second term, at an increased rate.
Also, rather than MAGAing, he is making America less than it was.
Trump is the epitome of political lies and broken promises.

Was that Donald Trump or Bill Clinton?😉
Or even the revered JFK?
Let's face it, it could have been an off the cuff remark made by half the former presidents of the US. Reprehensible, perhaps - but not peculiar to the current incumbent.

Were they? Haven't they?
The Labour party manifesto did not explicitly specify that the commitment not to increase National Insurance applied only to employee contributions, which is why Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) director Paul Johnson argues that increasing employer NICs would seem to be a “straightforward breach of a manifesto commitment”.
As regards the "working people" angle, the OBR has forecast that approximately three-quarters of the employer NICs increase will be passed on to employees through lower real wages.

So, your defence of Trump's recorded "grab 'em by the pussy" statement, is that other people who have never been recorded as saying it, might have said it, perhaps.
🤣
What about his convictions for fraud, or being found liable in court for sexual assault, or being adjudged a rapist?
Are they also something to be dismissed with a wave of the hand, as something other presidents might have done, perhaps?

So, your defence of Trump's recorded "grab 'em by the pussy" statement, is that other people who have never been recorded as saying it, might have said it, perhaps.
🤣
What about his convictions for fraud, or being found liable in court for sexual assault, or being adjudged a rapist?
Are they also something to be dismissed with a wave of the hand, as something other presidents might have done, perhaps?

'Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.'
Single sentence, page 21

But they have increased National Insurance.
Increasing either the employee or employer rates and/or thresholds increases National Insurance, thus impacting the livelihoods of working people, as both the IFS and the OBR have indicated.
As Paul Johnson put it: a straightforward manifesto breach.

Not only working people, the rise has been on companies and public sector bodies.
No working person has had their NI raised - unless they've had a pay rise of course.