23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Because it is. Every single major EU broadsheet is saying so. After all, this will bring an additional 90 billion USD into American coffers, and Trump has got away with redefining the EU and UJS trade relationship greatly to America's favour. In addition the EU has committed to purchase  600 plus billion US military equipment and to  buy  700 billion plus of US energy, and agreed to invest 600 bililon in the US.

 

No wonder Trump is jubilant and von der Leyen is subdued.

 

This is a great deal for the  US, a very poor deal for the EU. Their aim was just to avoid a trade war and to retain the US as military muscle in NATO. Otherwise they'd never have agreed to such a poor deal.

I'm just saying on the face of it what's bad for EU in terms of tariffs is not necessarily good for the US - when I saw the hoopla about it I assumed US exporters must have got some concessions. . The broad commitments could be a thing but they are often noting what they would do anyway or have no hard and fast rules about their implementation. 

20 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

When they know you'll try to honor your campaign policy, you get elected.   Then you try and even succeed sometimes.

 

I think it's called ... " WINNING "

AGAIN ❤️

 

Slowly chipping it's way back up  

 

Oh my Buddha, a poster who thinks 5 days and 3 basis points makes a statistically significant trend.

 

Perhaps the term "dead cat bounce" is not in your lexicon. Here's one years' worth.

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's not a win for the American people as it's a REGRESSIVE tax.

Also I don't believe the majority of American are fooled by his games. Most know it's consumers that pay this by now.

I understand your point... But at this point in time a regressive tax is better than no tax... We need to fund our government expenses and not borrow money... Trump has snookered the Republicans into the biggest tax increase in modern history..

24 minutes ago, hotsun said:

You think people dependent on that junk are smart?

Smarter than the ones who believe in homeopathy, copper bracelets, and crystals.

 

Are you an anti-vaxxer? Figures.

24 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Oh my Buddha, a poster who thinks 5 days and 3 basis points makes a statistically significant trend.

 

Perhaps the term "dead cat bounce" is not in your lexicon. Here's one years' worth.

A poster who doesn't understand 'chipping it's way back up.

 

Selective chart ... here's a better one ... up ~50% 

 

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Smarter than the ones who believe in homeopathy, copper bracelets, and crystals.

 

Are you an anti-vaxxer? Figures.

I'm not antivac or extremist in any way but also aware enough of how big pharma is out of control

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

A poster who doesn't understand 'chipping it's way back up.

 

Selective chart ... here's a better one ... up ~50% 

 

Chipping is what I do when I play golf.

 

The only definition AI will give me related to your post refers to a reduction in price during a negotiation.

 

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Because it is. Every single major EU broadsheet is saying so. After all, this will bring an additional 90 billion USD into American coffers, and Trump has got away with redefining the EU and UJS trade relationship greatly to America's favour. In addition the EU has committed to purchase  600 plus billion US military equipment and to  buy  700 billion plus of US energy, and agreed to invest 600 bililon in the US.

 

No wonder Trump is jubilant and von der Leyen is subdued.

 

This is a great deal for the  US, a very poor deal for the EU. Their aim was just to avoid a trade war and to retain the US as military muscle in NATO. Otherwise they'd never have agreed to such a poor deal.

 

I largely agree with you and certainly with your final two sentences. However, just how good and bad a deal this is for the respective sides remains to be seen.

 

Europe should pay more for its' defence, so the commitment to buy US military equipment is no bad thing: I also think that the commitment to increase imports of US energy is a positive step if this, in any way, helps to reduce EU dependency on Russian energy. 

 

Whatever way you look at it, a 15% tariff is bad news for EU exporters. However, whether this will add anything like $90bn to the US Treasury remains to be seen: To state the blindingly obvious, someone has to pay the 15%. If they don't - and the volume and/or value of EU exports decreases - the outcome may not be the one which President Trump desires.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

You make it sounds like a one way deal, are you have understood the mutual part of the agreement? 

 

Us buys goods from EU, and the American consumers pay the extra 15%

 

That means everyone in USA have to pay additional 15% on their products! 

 

So the American state making 15 % on you, not something EU pays, because we makes your goods taxed by the same over here both custom and vat. 

 

Hm win win huh, when you do not understand simple mathematics 

 

It is a <deleted> show for his audience and of course distraction from more important issues

 

I think you've completely misunderstood the effect of the tariffs. The American consumer is not going to pay an extra 15% if he can get an equivalent product that's 15% cheaper. Usually it's local subsidiaries of the EU companies that are importing the products from the  EU. The American consumer will pay what he wants to pay, and if he can get a similar product cheaper, he can buy the cheaper product, he's under no obligation to buy a more expensive EU product.

 

This is the whole point of tariffs, to hobble the overseas competition and to favour local companies. 

 

If the American consumer will pay the 15% why are EU broadsheets saying the 15% tariffs will hit EU companies hard?

 

It's indeed simple mathematics, the EU is not making 15% tariffs on US products, and there are far fewer of them the EU is importing anyway.

 

Again, it's a deal that massively favours the US.

1 hour ago, hotsun said:

Nothing has been as expensive as now because inflation only increases prices, never decreases. Why Bitcoin exists

We can certainly agree on that. However, I'm not the one who supports a guy who claimed he would bring the price of groceries down.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I largely agree with you and certainly with your final two sentences. However, just how good and bad a deal this is for the respective sides remains to be seen.

 

Europe should pay more for its' defence, so the commitment to buy US military commitment is no bad thing: I also think that the commitment to increase imports of US energy is a positive step if this, in any way, helps to reduce EU dependency on Russian energy. 

 

Whatever way you look at it, a 15% tariff is bad news for EU exporters. However, whether this will add anything like $90bn to the US treasury remains to be seen: To state the blindingly obvious, someone has to pay the 15%. If they don't - and the volume and/or value of EU exports decreases - the outcome may not be the one which President Trump desires.

 

He desires behavioral change in the economy. He desires consumers buy domestic products. 

 

European manufacturers know that. They'll reprice to stay competitive 

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

Europe should pay more for its' defence, so the commitment to buy US military equipment is no bad thing: I also think that the commitment to increase imports of US energy is a positive step if this, in any way, helps to reduce EU dependency on Russian energy. 

 

Well, it's a bad thing from Europe's perspective. The 800 billion the Germans had earmarked to invest in THEIR arms industry will now be largely spent on funding the American arms industry.

 

For many months now von der Leyen has been singing the mantra of becoming self-sufficient and independent from the US, to find a European way. So now they will become dependent on America's arms industry? Bizarre.

 

I don't recall Russia ever imposing 30% tariffs or messing the EU about on trade the way the US has, when Russia was delivering cut price energy.

 

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whatever way you look at it, a 15% tariff is bad news for EU exporters.

 

It certainly is. And Trump did not include Aluminium and Steel in the deal, which still have more than 15% slapped on them. Pharmaceuticals too in limbo sitll.

 

It's really a terrible deal for Europe.

 

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think you've completely misunderstood the effect of the tariffs. The American consumer is not going to pay an extra 15% if he can get an equivalent product that's 15% cheaper. Usually it's local subsidiaries of the EU companies that are importing the products from the  EU. The American consumer will pay what he wants to pay, and if he can get a similar product cheaper, he can buy the cheaper product, he's under no obligation to buy a more expensive EU product.

 

This is the whole point of tariffs, to hobble the overseas competition and to favour local companies. 

 

If the American consumer will pay the 15% why are EU broadsheets saying the 15% tariffs will hit EU companies hard?

 

It's indeed simple mathematics, the EU is not making 15% tariffs on US products, and there are far fewer of them the EU is importing anyway.

 

Again, it's a deal that massively favours the US.

I haven’t misunderstood anything, all we need is time to see how this unfolding, like you predicts, or the American and European  consumers just finds other products instead, and then the valuable trade between two countries is at stakes. 

 

Canadians and Europeans already start looking for substitutes instead of American goods, and it seems the winner is China, 

1 minute ago, theblether said:

 

He desires behavioral change in the economy. He desires consumers buy domestic products. 

 

That may well be true. However, assuming that tariffs are the best tool to achieve that aim - debatable in itself - surely they should have been targeted? The US cannot possibly achieve self-sufficiency in every product affected by the tariffs.

 

1 minute ago, theblether said:

European manufacturers know that. They'll reprice to stay competitive 

 

That remains to be seen and is very debatable. At an aggregated level, it is not unreasonable to assume that EU manufacturers may cut their profit margins, but the unknown is how much of a hit they are willing to take. Once again, much depends on the individual products, their elasticity of demand, etc. 

 

There is, perhaps, a lesson to be learned from Brexit. Although there are no tariffs on goods exchanged between the EU and UK, the volume of trade between the two has decreased by +/-15% since Brexit due to the increased complexity (bureaucracy) in doing business. Anything that acts as a barrier to trade - especially tariffs - is bound to have a negative effect on volumes and value.

10 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s the sisseys that need to try and bully others real men (and women) lead by example.

Why? What we want is best.

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I think you've completely misunderstood the effect of the tariffs. The American consumer is not going to pay an extra 15% if he can get an equivalent product that's 15% cheaper. Usually it's local subsidiaries of the EU companies that are importing the products from the  EU. The American consumer will pay what he wants to pay, and if he can get a similar product cheaper, he can buy the cheaper product, he's under no obligation to buy a more expensive EU product.

 

This is the whole point of tariffs, to hobble the overseas competition and to favour local companies. 

 

If the American consumer will pay the 15% why are EU broadsheets saying the 15% tariffs will hit EU companies hard?

 

It's indeed simple mathematics, the EU is not making 15% tariffs on US products, and there are far fewer of them the EU is importing anyway.

 

Again, it's a deal that massively favours the US.

It's not that simple because there is something called the law of supply and demand. If demand for the cheaper products increase, their price may increase, in particular if production cannot significantly be increased on short term. Probably not as much as 15%, but it's a good opportunity to increase margins.

On Thursday July 31, oral arguments are scheduled on Trump’s appeal of one of the earlier rulings against his use of tariffs under International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

 

Capital Alpha, a Washington-based research firm, said in a note Wednesday that in an unusual move, it expects those arguments in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to be heard “en banc” — by all 11 active judges on the court.

“By hearing the case for the first time en banc, the court is sending a message that it wishes to make a decisive ruling which reflects the views of the entire court as quickly as possible,” Capital Alpha wrote, noting that eight of the judges are Democratic appointees, three were installed by Republicans and none by Trump. “The president has his work cut out for him here.”

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-07-24/trade-war-latest-court-challenges-to-trump-s-tariffs

38 minutes ago, hotsun said:

I'm not antivac or extremist in any way but also aware enough of how big pharma is out of control

There, I agree.

 

I needed a targeted inhibitor medication a couple of years ago. My socialist Australian government supports subsidized medicine, the course cost me $100.

 

I am reliably informed the same course in America would have cost $70,000.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There, I agree.

 

I needed a targeted inhibitor medication a couple of years ago. My socialist Australian government supports subsidized medicine, the course cost me $100.

 

I am reliably informed the same course in America would have cost $70,000.

 

 

...and free in the UK over the age of......60?

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

No wonder Trump is jubilant and von der Leyen is subdued.

 

This is the problem with Trump. It's like that picture, Dogs Playing Poker. Trump is always the dog wagging his tail. And that's why a week later, these "deals" always look bad.

 

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Nope, your english is garbled and your facts are missing.

You two must be soul mates as that is same as most of your posts!

 

PS; I suggest that if you are going to complain about a poster's English that you type it correctly!

40 minutes ago, candide said:

We can certainly agree on that. However, I'm not the one who supports a guy who claimed he would bring the price of groceries down.

When was the last time were were in an American supermarket?

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

And that's why a week later, these "deals" always look bad.

Tell us which ones have turned bad in a week?

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Tell us which ones have turned bad in a week?

 

Japan. It turned out to be non-existent.

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

749,170 new EU-made cars were exported from the EU to the US in 2024, valuing €38.5 billion

2024 US Tariff on EU-made cars was 2.5%,

749,170 2.5% tariffs equals Euro 962,500,500

if the same value of cars exported to USA from Europe from august 1st onwards  with 15% tariffs would equal 5,775,000,000 an increase of tariffs of euro  4,812,499,500 against 2024 tariffs

164,857 US-made cars were exported to the EU in 2024, valuing €7.7 billion

2024 EU Tariff on US-made cars was 10%, 164,857 10% tariff equals euro 770.000.000

if the same value of cars exported to EU from USA  from august 1st onwards  with 0% tariffs would equal a saving of euro 770.000.000

Overall an increase of tarrifs based on same car numbers and values  of 2024 of Euro  4,812,499,500 for EU-USA imports

and a saving of Euros 770.000.000  based on same car numbers and values  of 2024  for USA-EU car imports

https://www.acea.auto/files/ACEA_fact_sheet_EU_US_vehicle_trade_March_2025.pdf

 

 

I think you are taking my post out of its context.

 

Trump had announced 30% of tariffs starting August 1. While there is no deal yet, the EU has managed to get that reduced to 15%, while they are working on a deal. But also have 30% tariffs on US goods already approved by all members of the bloc, which can be enforced immediately if further negotiations don't go as expected.

 

I haven't seen any details published yet, so where do you get the 0% on US cars from? It's not because Trump says so, that it is the truth, in fact, I'm pretty sure it is a lie.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

...and free in the UK over the age of......60?

Swings and roundabouts.

 

The Australian government does not freeze the pensions of its citizens living in Thailand.

 

IIRC that's a pretty sore point with most Brits.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Swings and roundabouts.

 

The Australian government does not freeze the pensions of its citizens living in Thailand.

 

IIRC that's a pretty sore point with most Brits.

 

"Fortunately", the state pension is such a pittance and the annual rise derisory it all levels out to equal sweet **** all in the long run....555

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, it's a bad thing from Europe's perspective. The 800 billion the Germans had earmarked to invest in THEIR arms industry will now be largely spent on funding the American arms industry.

 

For many months now von der Leyen has been singing the mantra of becoming self-sufficient and independent from the US, to find a European way. So now they will become dependent on America's arms industry? Bizarre.

 

The Reuters Press Release states that, "the EU pledged to make $750 billion in strategic purchases, covering oil, gas, nuclear, fuel and chips during U.S. President Donald Trump's term in office. The EU pledged to buy U.S. military equipment" (Comment: No mention of anything like €800bn being spent on US arms alone).. 

 

Reuters went on to say, "European companies are to invest $600 billion in the U.S. over the course of Trump's second term ..... EU officials said the Europe's $600 billion investment pledge is based on private sector projects already in the pipeline".

 

I have not tried to disguise the fact that imo this is a bad deal for the EU, but it is nowhere near as catastrophic as you portray it.

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I don't recall Russia ever imposing 30% tariffs or messing the EU about on trade the way the US has, when Russia was delivering cut price energy.

 

We have had - and almost certainly will continue to have - many disagreements about Russia and her motives. This is not the place to restart that discussion.

 

Suffice to say, replacing Russian-sourced energy with US-sourced energy is imo to be welcomed.

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It certainly is. And Trump did not include Aluminium and Steel in the deal, which still have more than 15% slapped on them. Pharmaceuticals too in limbo sitll.

 

It's really a terrible deal for Europe.

 

 

Once again, from Reuters: 

 

"Tariffs on European steel and aluminium will stay at 50%, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said these would later be cut and replaced by a quota system."

 

" ...the EU-U.S. deal already secures a 15% tariff for European chips and pharmaceuticals, so the results of the investigations will not change that, U.S. officials said"

 

A bad deal for the EU? Certainly. 

A really terrible deal? No.

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

"Fortunately", the state pension is such a pittance and the annual rise derisory it all levels out to equal sweet **** all in the long run....555

The monthly UK pension is 43,371 baht.

 

The monthly Australian base pension is 52,652 baht. We get any COL adjustments.

 

Just saying....

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

A bad deal for the EU? Certainly. 

A really terrible deal? No.

 

There will only be a deal after it is approved by all 27 members