Trump Eyes Wave of New Trade Deals Amid 90-Day Tariff Pause

[rough diamond]

Just now, impulse said:

Over 70 countries have come to the negotiating table.

Name them!

All that Trump's administration has said is; "Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says negotiations over tariffs are happening, and about 70 countries have called the White House since ‘Liberation Day’ to talk trade"

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says negotiations over tariffs are happening, and about 70 countries have called the White House since ‘Liberation Day’ to talk trade

 

Not quite the same as; "Over 70 countries have come to the negotiating table."

" called the White House since ‘Liberation Day’ to talk trade" is not the same as "Over 70 countries have come to the negotiating table."

 

 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, rough diamond said:

about 70 countries have called the White House

 

Not quite the same as; "Over 70 countries have come to the negotiating table."

 

Pick nits with someone else.  I'm not playing that game.

 

 

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, save the frogs said:

Seems like he was handed trade deals that were out of balance, but I'm no expert.  

 

Perhaps you can explain why countries like the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE and Australia that US enjoyed a trade surplus are out of balance. Also please explain why an uninhabited McDonald Island has trade out of balance. Thank you. 

[rough diamond]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Pick nits with someone else.  I'm not playing that game.

 

 

You make misleading statements and when called out you cut and run.

Goodbye you nit!

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly, this applies to both sides of the political debate.

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Perhaps you can explain why countries like the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Singapore, UAE and Australia that US enjoyed a trade surplus are out of balance. Also please explain why an uninhabited McDonald Island has trade out of balance. Thank you. 

 

I don't know the details.

If Trump wants to hire me and pay me a 6 digit salary, I'll look into it.

But just common sense and simple logic ...

What are you suggesting?

That Trump is so demented and crazy and stupid that he's trying to make new deals for no apparent reason?

Or the only other possible thing you might be suggesting ...

He's pure evil and he is deliberately trying to drive the US into the ground because he wants everyone to starve to death.

Or could it be the most obvious and banal explanation? Maybe he is trying to get better deals for his country than what he previously had?

 

 

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

I don't know the details.

If Trump wants to hire me and pay me a 6 digit salary, I'll look into it.

But just common sense and simple logic ...

What are you suggesting?

That Trump is so demented and crazy and stupid that he's trying to make new deals for no apparent reason?

Or the only other possible thing you might be suggesting ...

He's pure evil and he is deliberately trying to drive the US into the ground because he wants everyone to starve to death.

Or could it be the most obvious and banal explanation? Maybe he is trying to get better deals for his country than what he previously had?

 

 

He already had trade surpluses with the countries that I mentioned and an uninhibated country. What better deals is he trying to get? Kindly explain. Perhaps you shopuld stop digging yourself into a hole. Trump's action can be explained in one word i.e. corruption. 

[jvs]

58 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Seems like he was handed trade deals that were out of balance, but I'm no expert.  

 

If the trade deals were so bad then how come after many years of being taken advantage off the USA

is still one of the richest countries in the world?

I-phone,just one example.

The idea created in the USA,made in China and where does most of the (large) profit margin end up?

[impulse]

23 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

He already had trade surpluses with the countries that I mentioned and an uninhibated country.

 

You mean that uninhabited country that did $1.4 million in exports to the US in 2022?  Lumping them into the same 10% tariff category puts a stop to any possibility that'll ever happen again, whether that was deceit or an honest error on the paperwork.  Anyone who understands how tariffs work and the US HTC know exactly why it was done.  This is from the World Bank, 2022.

 

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, jvs said:

If the trade deals were so bad then how come after many years of being taken advantage off the USA

is still one of the richest countries in the world?

I-phone,just one example.

The idea created in the USA,made in China and where does most of the (large) profit margin end up?

 

Sorry, I am not an economics expert, but Trump is going after countries that the US has large trade deficits with and the way he calculated the tariffs is based on the deficit. 

 

[save the frogs]

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Sorry, I am not an economics expert, but Trump is going after countries that the US has large trade deficits with and the way he calculated the tariffs is based on the deficit. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

And therein lies the problem. Imo KISS is often a good maxim but it has its' limits.

 

Even if one accepts that the US might have a point about being treated unfairly, the idea that the situation could be equalised by using an all encompassing arithmetic formula, which could have been devised by a 5-year old, is ludicrous

[jvs]

34 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Sorry, I am not an economics expert, but Trump is going after countries that the US has large trade deficits with and the way he calculated the tariffs is based on the deficit. 

 

Ok, i can see that but why Australia?

I just believe it is not about making the US great again,it is how to bully countries.

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, jvs said:

Ok, i can see that but why Australia?

I just believe it is not about making the US great again,it is how to bully countries.

there could be some bullying going on ... it is possible. 

why not have an independent international body monitoring fair trade or sth? 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

17 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

there could be some bullying going on ... it is possible. 

why not have an independent international body monitoring fair trade or sth? 

 

There is. The World Trade Organisation. There are articles like this that look at the role they might play IF INTERESTED.

 https://www.piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/2025/wto-30-return-higher-tariffs

 

Australia took China to the WTO after they made it difficult to sell products including wine, sea food and steel products - the dispute process takes a lot of time. 

They now may take the US to the WTO. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-02/government-could-challenge-trump-at-world-trade-organisation-/105127142

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

It's been said many times. You get that there's no logic to this. Cote D'ivoire sell cocoa beans to America because they can do it cheaply and America can't grow them. They don't buy much as a poor country. What is the logic for a big tarrif when they are selling stuff to America they want. There is none. 

[save the frogs]

11 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It's been said many times. You get that there's no logic to this. Cote D'ivoire sell cocoa beans to America because they can do it cheaply and America can't grow them. They don't buy much as a poor country. What is the logic for a big tarrif when they are selling stuff to America they want. There is none. 

good point. sorry, i dont know what he's doing with Cote D'Ivoire

[candide]

4 hours ago, FlorC said:

More than 50 last time . Ask Trump. 

In the MAGA alternate universe! 

[candide]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

Actually the WH claimed that was the formula they used! 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

And therein lies the problem. Imo KISS is often a good maxim but it has its' limits.

 

Even if one accepts that the US might have a point about being treated unfairly, the idea that the situation could be equalised by using an all encompassing arithmetic formula, which could have been devised by a 5-year old, is ludicrous

 

The genius is in the simplicity if you understand that Trump's objective is to bring them to the negotiating table.  Putting more pressure on those with a higher trade imbalance just makes sense.  Those numbers are just starting points for the negotiation.  So is the 10% across the board.  They're not cast in stone.  And they sure got the attention of the trade emissaries around the world.  Who now have 90 days to think about it.

 

It absolutely gobsmacks me that expats living in a country with the 300% tariffs on US cars can't see that America has been taking it in the shorts for decades.  Since WW2.  It was fine when the rest of the world economies were on their heels after the war.  But not for the past 40 years or so.   (And with Thailand, gratitude for the Vietnam War is long past the sell by date)

 

Trouble is, once an entity gets accustomed to free stuff and sweet deals, they squeal like little girls when you try to wean them off the free stuff and sweet deals.

[FlorC]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

 

So do you agree or not? Tariffs - especially applied in the 'blanket' way proposed - may reduce demand and/or cause inflation and/or reduce profits? If so, why is worth running this risk?

Nearly all countries have tariffs , why shouldn't the US?

Demand reduction is not a bad thing. Biden and covid caused more inflation.  Enough profit is already made . So yes it is worth the risk.

Now the US has had a decades long advantage by having the reserve currency though . Something Trump doesn't mention .

[Fat is a type of crazy]

36 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The genius is in the simplicity if you understand that Trump's objective is to bring them to the negotiating table.  Putting more pressure on those with a higher trade imbalance just makes sense.  Those numbers are just starting points for the negotiation.  So is the 10% across the board.  They're not cast in stone.  And they sure got the attention of the trade emissaries around the world.  Who now have 90 days to think about it.

 

It absolutely gobsmacks me that expats living in a country with the 300% tariffs on US cars can't see that America has been taking it in the shorts for decades.  Since WW2.  It was fine when the rest of the world economies were on their heels after the war.  But not for the past 40 years or so.   (And with Thailand, gratitude for the Vietnam War is long past the sell by date)

 

Trouble is, once an entity gets accustomed to free stuff and sweet deals, they squeal like little girls when you try to wean them off the free stuff and sweet deals.

Genius?  You have to love you some Trump to describe this childish high risk experiment as genius. You are obviously happy with bullying the world into bringing them to the negotiating table against a superpower when in many many cases there is no issue in the first place - America sells more to the country or they buy more because they want the stuff. You do know the calculations don't  include services making the figures even more bogus. 

A small number of countries that have real issues can be addressed as appropriate.  Consumers, investors, businesses and everyday people have to cop the consequences of this  and you call it genius. I can imagine you saying the same thing if it was Kamala. 

[Cryingdick]

8 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Mr. Trump you're a great guy so smart, and very handsome. OK, we now have a trade deal? Easier than I thought. 

 

Sounds like he should go with you to soi 6 and learn how it's done from a true master. 

[spidermike007]

6 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Sounds like he should go with you to soi 6 and learn how it's done from a true master. 

They would be discussing the infamous mushroom for years to come. Have you even seen anything like that? Very alien. 

[Cryingdick]

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

They would be discussing the infamous mushroom for years to come. Have you even seen anything like that? Very alien. 

 

Sounds like you have seen your share of that.

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Sounds like you have seen your share of that.

So have you, you're part of a mushroom farm.

 

Kept in the dark, and fed on BS.

[spidermike007]

7 hours ago, FlorC said:

A good article , yes copy and paste , with a better view on the tariffs.

It is not that bad and anyone with a basic grasp of economics should know better.

 

The panic-peddlers are out in force, warning that such a tariff means retail prices will skyrocket 50%.  

 

Let’s make one thing clear: a tariff applies to the transaction value, not the final retail price.  The transaction value is what the importer pays the exporter, plus freight and insurance.  That cost is just the first step in a long supply chain.  By the time a product reaches the consumer, it’s been marked up to cover domestic shipping, warehousing, employee wages, utilities, sales tax, and profit margins for every hand it passes through.  The tariff is just one input among many.

 

Take a simple example.  

A retailer imports a widget with a $100 transaction value.  Add a 50% tariff, and the cost to the importer becomes $150.  That importer then sells it wholesale — perhaps at $200 — to a retailer, who marks it up again to $300 for sale.  That $50 tariff is now 16.7% of the retail price.  Even if every penny of the tariff is passed along, you’re not looking at a 50% increase in retail price — you’re looking at something closer to 17%.

 

But here’s the kicker: tariffs are not always fully passed on to the consumer.  Importers and retailers know they can’t raise prices beyond what the market will bear.  Sometimes they absorb part of the cost, cut expenses, renegotiate contracts, or shift to different suppliers.  The market reacts; it doesn’t just lie down and take it.

Still not convinced?  Look at the real-world data:

 

The National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed the 2018–2019 U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods.  They found that for every 10% tariff, retail prices rose 1–2%.  So even a 50% tariff, if applied, might cause retail prices to edge up 5–10% — not 50%.  That’s a far cry from the alarmist headlines.

So why do politicians and media outlets keep pushing the scare narrative?  Easy: Fear sells.

  

“Fifty percent” is a lot more dramatic than “maybe 5 to 10%.”  It’s easier to provoke outrage than to explain how pricing actually works.  They’re banking on the average person not understanding the difference between wholesale cost and retail price — or not caring enough to dig into the numbers.

Yes, tariffs matter.  They influence trade behavior.  They can increase some costs.  They can disrupt certain supply chains.  But they’re not some magic multiplier that doubles the price of your groceries or gadgets overnight.  

Anyone pushing that line is either economically illiterate or deliberately misleading you.

The next time you hear that a 50% tariff will mean a 50% price hike, don’t nod along.  Push back.  Ask for the math.  Demand the details.  

Because when it comes to tariffs and retail pricing, the facts just don’t support the hysteria.

 

Well put !

 

A lot of countries already made trade deals , more will follow.

For the rest , the tariffs won't be that bad , except maybe China.

 

Trump thanks you and your $15,000 PR check is on the way. Maybe. He does have a bad habit of not paying his people. 

[spidermike007]

4 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

Sounds like you have seen your share of that.

Thankfully no, and my guess is that any woman who was exposed to that, in addition to the sulfuric smell, would require hundreds if not thousands of hours of therapy. 

[Harrisfan]

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

reviewing proposals.

and some deals will likely be made within the 90 day pause.

 

but you people want instant gratification or you bark incessantly. 

please stop barking for the next 90 days on this issue and wait, will you? 

 

They never stop. Daily whiners.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

A small number of countries that have real issues can be addressed as appropriate. 

 

How much import and export have you done from the USA?  Not much if you think it's a small number of countries.