RayC

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Trump's position, the fact remains that the funds given to Ukraine by the EU are not all in the form of loans as you wrote: Indeed, 2/3rds of the money is non-repayable.

We voted to leave. I thought it foolhardy but fully supported the decision to implement that decision. However, 9 years on from the vote and 5 since we formally left the EU, it's clear that the Brexit implemented by Johnson is not in the countries' best interests, so any sensible politician would take steps to rectify the situation.

Which is completely different to implying that the markets are unimportant ("Who cares about the markets").

Yes, the economic benefits of Brexit are plain for all to see. Only a fool would seek to reverse them🤦

Yes, I know what a concessional loan is but, unfortunately, you apparently don't know what grants or in-kind support are. You stated that " ... EVERYTHING (my caps) the EU has done has not been given as with the US but as a loan". That is untrue.

Economists and most governments, although apparently not the President of the USA.

Simply not true: "Since the start of the war, the EU and our Member States have made available close to $155 billion in financial, military, humanitarian, and refugee assistance, of which 65% have been provided as grants or in-kind support and 35% in the form of highly concessional loans" (Source: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253)

Not at all. Just providing some realism rather than hyperbole.

Really? Starmer might describe himself as a socialist but, apart from the bailing out and likely renationalisation of British Steel, I haven't seen many economic policies enacted by this government which could be described as 'socialist'. An "Ultra authoritarian state with zero freedom of speech": If you were in the UK, you would be perfectly entitled to make your views known and I doubt very much that you would be told to be silent. Unlike China, the Labour government does not operate a system of state capitalism; the UK is very much a market driven economy. When it comes to dissent, unlike China there is no risk of you - or anyone else for that matter - being lifted off the street and taken away for re-education. Does the UK have a " ... huge, overbearing government just like China" as you claim? I'd say the evidence suggests otherwise.

Given that the next GE is unlikely to be held before 2028 at the earliest, this poll is imo completely irrelevant. A survey into voting intentions at the forthcoming local elections would have more relevance.

As I said previously, I was simply pointing out the irony of the situation. What's your point?

" .. a new survey suggests that Nigel Farage’s Reform UK could become the largest party in a hung parliament if a general election were held today." Speculation about an imaginary event. Rightio.

Let's be honest, this is nonsense.

To state the blindingly obvious, a poster can bring any word into any discussion. I'm certain that I know better than you what I was suggesting. The thought never crossed my mind🤞

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I am simply pointing out the irony of the situation.

All well and good but irrespective of that Karma is a concept that has been imported into the UK. It has its' origins in India.

"Always assuming there are buyers of course". There's the rub. Overseas demand for US autos, ships, machine tools, etc. is not high and this is not simply a function of price. For example, the data shows that European consumers prefer Mercedes and BMW to Ford and Chrysler. The imposition of tariffs against European products will not stimulate demand for US cars, it may well have the opposite effect. People do not like bullies and that is exactly what Trump is perceived as being. I can only repeat what I said previously. ALL companies, regardless of their domicile, who sell their wares in Europe are liable for VAT. VAT is not unilaterally imposed on US companies. It is NOT a tariff and the fact that the US does not impose VAT is irrelevant. So no, I do not see why Americans view the imposition of VAT as an unfair complication of doing business in Europe. It is nothing of the sort. No companies like paying taxes but China, Japan, etc do not think that their companies are being discriminated against because they have to pay VAT when doing business in Europe. This is in no way a justification for Trump imposing tariffs on European goods

Rumours?

It may well be a good idea for the US to source and build defence and security related products domestically if they can but - given that the US enjoys a large trading surplus in defence related products - it is difficult to see how this is going to boost the US economy if other nations follow suit. The exact opposite may occur. I had not seen the official text regarding the tariff policy, so thanks for posting it. Having read it, the policy has even less justification than I originally thought. Unsurprisingly, the statement is selective in its' use of data. For example, the text states that, "The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports ... while the European Union (imposes) (10%)." No doubt true but it does rather gloss over the fact that before these latest developments, the average US tariff rate on all EU imports was 1.47%, while the tariff on all US exports to the EU averaged 1.35%. https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/economic-impact-trumps-tariffs-europe-initial-assessment) Some of the other 'justifications' are quite simply bizarre. The statement laments the fact that " ... U.S. companies .... pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border, while European companies don’t pay tax to the United States on the income from their exports to the U.S." Firstly - with very few exemptions - VAT is applied to ALL goods in the EU irrespective of their source and where the company is domiciled. EU businesses also pay VAT. It is NOT a tariff. Secondly, the clue is in the name, it is a tax on the added value with the cost ultimately falling on the consumer. It is akin to a sales tax in the US. Thirdly, the fact that the US government chooses not to use VAT amongst its' arsenal of taxes is neither here nor there. There are numerous other example of this type of nonsense which I could point to in the statement, but the preceding paragraphs should offer ample evidence of the absurdity of the 'justification' for this tariff policy.

What are these manufacturing sectors? Cheap electrical products? Textiles? I wouldn't have thought that the return of these industries is top of the wish list of either US captains of industry or the US worker. There may well be some truth in saying that some countries now want to buy US products in order to avoid future tariffs, however, one major problem is that the US doesn't have the products to sell, or more accurately products where there is sufficient demand. For example, I doubt that Vietnam has much pent-up demand for more Harleys, and spare Boeing parts or beef infused with anti-biotics. Perhaps the average Vietnamese consumer would be interested in buying more US-made, branded clothes and the latest iPhone, but I doubt very much whether they could afford these products.

That may be the case but it ignores the demand side of things. The US's major exports are Aircraft parts (gliders, balloons, and powered aircraft) ($10.8B), Refined Petroleum ($9.27B), Crude Petroleum ($9.26B), Petroleum Gas ($7.14B), and Commodities not elsewhere specified ($5.04B). I would have thought that the demand for Aircraft parts was relatively inelastic? If so, devaluing the dollar might result in a reduction in revenue in dollar terms. The demand for petrol and gas is related to economic activity which will suffer as a result of Trump's existing measures. In addition, the reaction of OPEC needs to be considered. Moreover, Europe and others are not about to increase their imports of US agricultural produce unless the US meets the required sanitary and phytosanitary standards. So in summary, it is quite conceivable that Trump will be successful in devaluing the dollar. It is a lot more debatable that his actions will increase US exporters' revenue or have any wider benefit.

In what way is Starmer, Xi's puppy? You must have missed the recent developments concerning British Steel. Anyway, I thought that Starmer was meant to be an Islamist puppet/ puppy?

Some institutions/ individuals have to bail. I agree that anyone in long term will probably be ok. Indeed, this may well be a decent opportunity to buy certain shares and the dollar. The markets will probably bounce back but that will be despite, rather than because of, Trump's current hair brain policies.

Absolute tosh. https://www.statista.com/statistics/879835/british-perceptions-on-donald-trump/

The US imposed tariffs on imports before this latest initiative so the implication that it is simply levelling the playing field is incorrect. Economic growth has costs and some environmentalists might agree with you that a reduction in consumption " .. is not a bad thing". However, the overwhelming majority of economists, politicians and consumers would not.