Reddit Posts
WBUY and MLGO: Exhibits #1,001 and #1,002 on why you stay away from shitty Asian small cap IPOs
Mentions
Anyone looking for a new play? WTO could run and it’s not already up 100%
WTO looks bottomed out and ready for a reversal.
WTO. Taken a beating lately. And hasn’t ran 100%+ (yet)
$WTO - oversold , Shortable shares at IBKR $387,000 On my watch list
WTO has a lot of room to run from where it was a week ago.
Is anyone looking at WTO ??
[China has given up benefit of being considered a developing country in WTO literally last month](https://apnews.com/article/china-wto-reform-developing-country-special-treatment-20c70ec00d9502189bba87f93521b09f). Bruv u r as ignorant as the shills lol. On the WTO subject, about a decade ago China stopped its attempted rare earth export restriction because the org has ruled that it is breaching the agreement. I wonder why doesn’t the US try that route this time or why does China not attempt this when the “senile and incompetent” Biden was in charge, oh right …
This is the sort of ignorant nonsense that comes from people who've never been to China or are shilling for the CCP. But, yeah, I'm sure China will give up the WTO "Developing Nation" designation any day now.
Just relaying again, I think everyone should take a look at WTO, coming off a bottom after an offering, company has an incentive to take the stock price back above 1.10 for a warrant execution, and historically for the past year, it's been trading above $1. I think it has room to come back
Okay hear me out, WTO just closed a public offering at .01 per share, which shatted their stock price to .07 BUT they also offerend a warrant with a purchase price at 1.10, I think there's potential
We gave them the opportunity to join the WTO to keep them from giving the USSR a deep sea port on the Pacific. Kissinger or whoever else was in charge of managing the deal in DC were either idiots or traitors (likely both), because China always ignored WTO rules (and there was never enforcement), China always stole everything, and always maximally infiltrated the US for industrial espionage and the traitors in DC never did anything. That’s why you can never have the bourgeoisie running the government. They just take bribes and sell out the country.
Honestly i am kind of locked in rn until PSEC gives me my divi tendies. If ClOV can make it pass 3 dollars i might sell and reinvest in DNN or PSEC. My last yolo pickup is WTO stock i put in like 6 bucks but if the stock can climb back up to ¢50 any investments i put in goes up 10 fold. Besides that, I'ma ride my Nintendo stocks through q4
And there it is, your typical centrist, where "both bad" is painted as "equally bad". One candidate was an attorney general, not in the Epstein list, can form a proper sentence, doesn't have a track record of screwing everyone over on her path to success, wasn't found guilty of charity fraud, didn't spread hate and radical nationalist ideas, didn't campaign over raising tariffs to oblivion or rolling back international trade to pre-WTO levels. Between the flu and stage-4 colon cancer, the choice should be obvious. Like I said, right-wingers with enough self-awareness to know that being pro-Trump is just bad for mating, so they cosplay political independence. Not fooling anyone.
JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇨🇳 WTO Chief warns global GDP could drop by 7% if the US & China decouple.
Wtf happen to WTO, why do i keep buying Chinese scam stocks.
I don’t disagree, except to say that it has been growing and growing and we have learned more. It isn’t as if the extent to which China was willing to play unfairly was known when free trade started. When China signed up to join the WTO, they promised to play by the rules. Unfortunately as an American I know that if you can’t trust someone’s word, there’s no use in negotiating. And that’s what we are seeing now.
I understand their point if it would be anybody but china. China has the most draconian rules to access their market, and they’re totally ignoring the WTO rules they signed up for 30 years ago that gave them access to all markets. They’re not enforcing any copyright laws, you have to open a company with a chinese partner and give them all your patents, yet they got butthurt when huawei got banned. Heck I’d ban all chinese brands until they open up the market entirely and get rid of all this crap.
Yeah, there's decent odds we will be fighting the Chinese over Taiwan. Yes, we should be doing things to keep an edge. China has benefited massively from access to a broad market to dump exports into. It was a foolish bargain for other members of the WTO because they were never getting reciprocal access to that billion man market.
It's worse than that. Until 2001 (when China joined WTO, do with that what you will) wages were more or less pinned to GDP. Government borrows, spend the money, GDP rises, wages rise, more tax income for the government. Now GDP goes up and wages don't, so tax revenue doesn't increase. At the same time capital gains tax also uncoupled from GDP but in the other direction. GDP goes up, wages don't, but capital gains increases way more than would be expected historically. So as long as the market keeps going up the capital gains tax helps to offset the income tax that isn't increasing. But if we have a lost decade. ???
Before Donald Trump, several countries and even the U.S. itself were involved in trade disputes and tariffs — but if you mean foreign tariffs specifically imposed on the U.S., that happened many times throughout history. Here’s a quick breakdown: ⸻ 🌍 Foreign Tariffs on U.S. Goods (Before Trump) 1. China • Before Trump (especially in the 2000s–2010s), China imposed high tariffs on U.S. agricultural and manufactured goods to protect its domestic industries. • These were part of normal trade barriers, not retaliatory until Trump’s trade war in 2018. 2. European Union • The EU had long-standing tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods (like beef and poultry), often due to food safety and regulatory disputes. • For example: • The EU banned U.S. hormone-treated beef starting in the 1980s, and imposed tariffs when the U.S. retaliated. • Disputes over aircraft subsidies (Airbus vs. Boeing) also led to mutual tariffs over the years. 3. Canada and Mexico • Prior to NAFTA (1994), Canada and Mexico had protective tariffs on many U.S. products. • Even after NAFTA, there were temporary tariffs during trade disputes (e.g., lumber, steel, dairy). 4. Japan • In the 1970s–1990s, Japan had non-tariff barriers and some tariffs that restricted U.S. exports — especially cars and agricultural goods. • These caused trade frictions and led to several “Voluntary Export Restraints” agreements on Japanese cars. 5. Latin America and Developing Nations • Countries like Brazil, India, and Argentina historically maintained high import tariffs on U.S. goods to protect local industries. • These were part of their general trade policies, not targeted at the U.S. ⸻ 🇺🇸 U.S.-Imposed Tariffs (Before Trump) Even the U.S. itself imposed tariffs that triggered foreign retaliation: • Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act (1930): raised U.S. tariffs on thousands of imports — many countries retaliated with their own tariffs on U.S. goods, worsening the Great Depression. • Bush (2002): imposed steel tariffs — the EU, Japan, and others threatened retaliation before the WTO ruled against them. • Obama (2009): placed tariffs on Chinese tires — China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. chicken and auto parts. ⸻ Would you like me to list the major pre-Trump tariffs specifically targeting U.S. exports (with years and countries) in a table format?
I’ll give you the list Intellectual property and cyber theft: Massive cyber intrusions for commercial gain: DOJ indictments against PLA Unit 61398 actors (2014), APT10/“Cloudhopper” (2018), APT41 (2020), and additional China-based contractors for stealing IP and confidential business data from scores of U.S. firms and MSPs. Equifax breach: DOJ charged four PLA members in 2020 for the 2017 hack stealing data on ~147 million Americans. Trade secret theft prosecutions: Conviction of Sinovel Wind Group for stealing AMSC turbine software (2018). Systemic concerns summarized by USTR: 2018 Section 301 report and 2024 four-year review detail cyber-theft, state-backed IP acquisition, and market-access pressures. China is well known to completely disregard IP laws as well. Forced technology transfer and market access pressure: USTR found longstanding practices of conditioning market access/approvals on tech transfer and other JV/administrative pressures; the 2024 review says PRC issued some legal changes but core concerns persist. Dumping, subsidies, and trade remedy cases: Solar products: AD/CVD orders since 2012 on Chinese crystalline silicon solar cells/modules; later findings of circumvention via Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam (2022 prelim; 2023/2024 developments). Tires: AD/CVD on passenger vehicle & light-truck tires from China (2015). Aluminum extrusions: Commerce’s 2024 affirmative determinations on multiple countries (including China) for dumping/subsidies (some later negated by ITC injury vote). Other steel/fasteners/staples, etc.: Recurring AD/CVD findings against a range of China-origin industrial goods (example: collated steel staples final in 2020). WTO adjudicated restrictions and export measures: Rare earths, tungsten, molybdenum export restraints: WTO panel/Appellate Body rulings against China’s export duties/quotas (2014–2015). Sanctions/export-control evasion: ZTE: 2017 guilty plea and record penalties (~$1.19 billion) for illegal shipments to Iran/North Korea and obstructing U.S. investigations. Huawei: 2019–2020 U.S. indictments alleging sanctions evasion (Iran), bank/wire fraud, and trade-secret theft (T-Mobile “Tappy”). Case continues. Counterfeits and piracy tied to China based markets/platforms: USTR’s Notorious Markets lists (2023, 2024) continue to highlight China-linked online/physical markets facilitating large-scale counterfeits/piracy. DHS and CBP outline enforcement campaigns against counterfeit flows that heavily involve PRC/HK shipments. Currency practices: Aug 2019 Treasury designated China a “currency manipulator”; the designation was removed Jan 2020 as part of the Phase-One context. (U.S. reports continue to criticize transparency.) Transshipment & tariff circumvention: Solar: Commerce found circumvention where China-origin components finished in Southeast Asia re-enter the U.S. market; temporary tariff waiver ended in 2024 with new AD/CVD findings on those countries. And that’s just a few easily cited examples
You should look at what China was before it got admitted to the UN and WTO, both due to changes in the US policy.
For the sake of accuracy, they have not halted _all_ exports. However, it sure looks like they plan to specifically target US weapon's manufacturing:[China’s New Rare Earth and Magnet Restrictions Threaten U.S. Defense Supply Chains](https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-new-rare-earth-and-magnet-restrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains) > after we had already negotiated a deal with them. The US now renege on their word on a regular basis, and they have pretty much killed the WTO, so nobody really cares (or even should care) about broken deals with the US nowadays.
Fucking bulls, lolololol. "China warns it is prepared to fight a tariff war if necessary, stating "we don't want one, but we are not afraid of one," urging the U.S. to reverse its course. China accuses the U.S. of undermining recent trade talks by adding Chinese firms to sanctions lists and moving forward with '301' measures, severely damaging the negotiation atmosphere. China confirms retaliatory 'special port fees' on U.S. vessels, calling it a necessary defensive move against unilateral American levies on Chinese ships that violate WTO rules."
>start a trade war What do you mean "start a trade war"? Decades of forced tech transfer, dumping, tariff & non-tariff barriers, FX manipulation, banking drug networks, cheating on WTO rules, and cyber theft that far exceeds Russia—plus breaking oil sanctions and supplying military equipment to a country actively invading Europe...not to mention the whole world tariffed and restricted us and each other. We've *been* in a trade war, and beyond, for decades. We *let* them into the international trading system where somehow virtually every other country manages to abide by the rules except them.
guys I think we will see a rebound next week and after a statement by the chinese gov and another after the xi-trump meeting that ends with a "deal". I think trump sees China as an unfair trading partner, wants investments in usa, manufacturing back, access to chinese market. He gets pressure from farmers (farming goods export to china), base (bring back manufacturing), big tech/firms (access to preproducts, chinese consumers, raw materials, export for chips). I think china wants a market for their manufacturing base, establish/further their diplomatic and standing as trading partner (that acts in the interest of the global market). I think they can't loose face by backing down (internally and to further their image (e.g. as a counterweight to the us). I think the chinese gov gets pressured by a worsening economic situation (export/production slowdown), slowdown in development/quality of life improvements, loss of world standing/improvement towards it. I think trump already hepps the chinese gov a lot with his actions e.g. university/research defunding, restrictions on immigration/visas (china positioms itself as a alternative for "global talent", their braindrain gets reduced), eratic actions that cause marker panic or attacks on juridical system (us isnt a reliable trading partner, doesnt act or tries to pretend to act in the interest of global markets), withdrawal from international organization (opens them up to be formed towards chinese interest, lead by china e.g. WTO), attacks and questioning of alliances/partners (weakens alliances that would work against chinese interests, gives china messaging oppertunities and pull factors towards their sphere). Therefore I think it makes sense for china to not react harshly to trump but rather put out a message that highligts they are a reliable global actor e.g saying trumps tariffs undermime global trade and the harmony between nations,... . Worded well it could give trump a victory -> china backed down, they can't retaliate as they need the us (lutnick). That would calm down the market until the meeting (no reason to cancel). At the meeting they could offer trump investments into manufacturing im the us (trump: china brings back the manufacturing and jobs they took from us and we reap all the benefits, china: we are helping the us to establish a manufacturing base, companies, could give chinese companies access to the us market by producing there, improve image), they could also open up trade in certain industroes e.g. cars (competition is already fierce, would lead to consolidation of chinese producers and make them more competitve and give them arguments to get access in other markets without restrictions e.g. europe). Trump and Xi would roleback all the restrictions on chips, raw materials. For china, a win would be some soft wording on a discussion about taiwan, even maybe a statement about an understanding between us-china on that topic (nothing specific, especially no mention about recogniton, military). I could imagine that in that context trump frames the taiwan statement as a reaction to taiwans unwilligness to expand chip production in the us. The meeting would to a rebound of the markets. Trump frames the meeting as a success of his negotiation style (brought back manufacturing, got access to the chinese market, chip expors, access to raw materials, low-medium tariffs mostly stay in place). Xi could frame it as an example of china as an reliable global actor, helping the us in development, success to lift the worst tariffs, weakening taiwan, weakening US reliability as a tradimg, military partner and in contrast to china: reliable global actor.
Alright… To use Section 232 for broad sweeping tariffs on all or many Chinese imports, the president would need first a Commerce Department investigation and report finding that those imports threaten U.S. national security. If that were done, the president might have statutory authority to impose tariffs, though whether 100% is justified/defensible would depend on the reasonableness of the national security argument, proportionality, trade and WTO constraints, and would absolutely result in a court challenge. Either way, imposing a 100% across-the-board tariff on China, rather than on particular lines with a national security justification, would make it vulnerable to legal challenge, both with domestic statute and international law. A Section 301 investigation would be necessary to justify action. The United States did use Section 301 against China in previous rounds. But a 100% tariff is ridiculous. The investigative record would need to support such severity and proportionality. We can expect it to be challenged as arbitrary. Section 122 allows up to 15% for 150 days, which isn’t anywhere close to 100%. Section 338 allows up to 50% but still requires strong justification, and courts will push back if it’s untethered to clear findings of discrimination. So a 100% tariff likely would exceed Section 338’s scope. The route Trump seems to be attempting is using IEEPA/Emergency Powers, like “declare national emergency, impose tariffs.” But courts have already struck down broad IEEPA-based tariffs as exceeding statutory authority. The recent CIT and Federal Circuit decisions show IEEPA does not authorize such sweeping tariffs, particularly when they amount to sweeping duties or taxes not contemplated by the statutory text. So a 100% tariff via IEEPA is likely to be invalidated as ultra vires (beyond lawful authority).
China's been in a trade war with the West since the WTO accession. Time we treat them the same way. Down vote away retards.
From 1990 till now, there's a country that US introduced to WTO that kinda offered some cheap child labor and low cost raw materials that significantly dropped the cost of purchasing consumer goods for US citizens. So Americans don't have to have higher wages but can enjoy a better material life. The goods is cheaper now than before compared proportionally with wages. Just housing ain't like that. And housing cost is a proportion impossible to ignore when people consider whether they're being paid a fair wage. Because we kinda need to live in it, i guess?
WTO violations. They would need to justify that. if it's global then it's outside of WTO jurisdiction, they mediate individual trade spats, not national economic policies.
Was just about to call that. Watching today: ISPC WTO MGIH LODE
*"That's not true in the modern era. That's how I know you don't have the first clue about macroeconomics"* lol no idea how you can be so confidently arrogant. Here's the [real GDP per capita](https://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/RealGDPperCapita-650x450.png) during major war periods in that "modern era". World War, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan... It goes up. That's just a factual statement, no room for interpretation there. "I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your argument is" China is in a completely different position, so saying "if one collapses, then the other will" is just stupid, and not a counter-argument. China has a long way to go until it reaches post-industrialism. And the fact that the RMB is not the world reserve currency benefits them. You need to think outside the American model for a second. *"Trump certainly is not positive for the US economy. But he will only be here for 4 years"* This showed the world that the US is and will always be an election away from electing a radical nationalist who can grow corruption to unprecendented levels within months, and roll back trade to pre-WTO levels at will. There's no undoing this. So if you're heavily invested in the US economy with a horizon of 30 years, you're in a riskier position than you think.
Graybeard confirming that was the peak era of concern. It was a nonpartisan frustration starting soon after China joined the WTO, but we eventually just gave up.
You are lying because you've been informed several times that the heritage article you posted is actually about the trade act of '74, ustr protocols and WTO retaliatory tariffs. You are also lying because you were given the EOs under Clinton that did use the IEEPA that had nothing to do with tariffs. Yet you still keep claiming the same refuted arguments. Despite having the facts. Also, blocking me is just pathetic after I provided the facts.
It's also about an entirely different law, the trade act of '74, as well as WTO protocols for retaliatory tariff. Both of which actually does give the president certain tariffs powers. I pointed this out and the troll won't address it.
Here’s 10. 10 times the government invested in a business not counting, bread, cheese, milk, etc 1. Tesla (U.S.) – The Department of Energy gave Tesla a $465 million loan in 2010 to build its electric vehicle factory. Tesla repaid it early in 2013. 2. General Motors (U.S.) – During the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the U.S. government invested about $50 billion into GM, taking a large equity stake to prevent bankruptcy. 3. AIG (U.S.) – The government invested over $180 billion during the 2008 financial crisis to stabilize AIG, taking a majority stake until it was later sold back. 4. Solyndra (U.S.) – The government invested $535 million in loan guarantees in 2009 to support the solar panel company (which later failed). 5. Airbus (European Union governments) – France, Germany, and the UK invested billions over decades in Airbus via subsidies and launch aid, helping it compete with Boeing. 6. SpaceX (U.S.) – NASA awarded SpaceX billions in contracts starting in 2008, effectively investing in its development of rockets and space transport. 7. Bank of America (U.S.) – Received $45 billion through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in 2008 to stabilize the financial system. 8. Royal Bank of Scotland (UK) – The UK government injected £45.5 billion in 2008, taking an 84% ownership stake. 9. Airlines (multiple countries, 2020 COVID-19 bailouts) – U.S. airlines like Delta, United, and American received billions in loans and grants; Germany took a 20% stake in Lufthansa. 10. Semiconductor Companies (U.S. CHIPS Act, 2022) – The U.S. government committed $52 billion in subsidies and grants for companies like Intel, TSMC, and Micron to build semiconductor plants in the U.S. How did they do? ⸻ 1. Tesla – DOE Loan (2010) • Result: Huge success. Tesla repaid the $465M loan early (2013), went on to become one of the world’s most valuable companies, and accelerated EV adoption. • Government outcome: Financially positive, and policy goal (EVs) advanced. ⸻ 2. General Motors – Bailout (2009) • Result: Success overall. GM avoided collapse, saved ~1 million jobs, returned to profitability. • Government outcome: U.S. sold its stake by 2013, losing ~$11B on the $50B investment, but policymakers considered it worthwhile to save the auto industry. ⸻ 3. AIG – Bailout (2008) • Result: Mixed to success. AIG stabilized, government gradually sold its stake at a profit. • Government outcome: U.S. invested ~$182B, recovered about $205B. Net gain ~$23B. ⸻ 4. Solyndra – Loan Guarantee (2009) • Result: Failure. Solyndra went bankrupt in 2011 despite $535M in federal support. • Government outcome: Big political controversy, but small relative to DOE’s wider clean energy loan portfolio (which overall turned a profit). ⸻ 5. Airbus – EU Support (ongoing) • Result: Long-term success. Airbus is now a global aerospace leader and Boeing’s biggest rival. • Government outcome: Strategic win for Europe, but led to WTO trade disputes with the U.S. over “illegal subsidies.” ⸻ 6. SpaceX – NASA Contracts (2008 onward) • Result: Huge success. NASA’s early contracts kept SpaceX afloat. It now dominates commercial launch markets and resupplies the ISS. • Government outcome: U.S. saved billions compared to traditional NASA contractors; helped ensure U.S. access to space after the Shuttle retired. ⸻ 7. Bank of America – TARP (2008) • Result: Success. Bank stabilized, repaid $45B by 2009–2010. • Government outcome: U.S. made a profit on dividends/interest. ⸻ 8. Royal Bank of Scotland – Bailout (2008) • Result: Mostly failure. RBS was effectively nationalized; its share price collapsed. UK taxpayers lost tens of billions as the government slowly sold down its 84% stake. • Government outcome: Big financial loss, though collapse was avoided. ⸻ 9. Airlines – COVID Bailouts (2020) • Result: Mixed. Bailouts kept airlines alive and workers paid during the crisis. U.S. loans mostly repaid, but taxpayers didn’t profit much. In Germany, Lufthansa’s rescue turned into a financial win — the government made ~€760M profit when it sold its stake in 2023. • Government outcome: Policy success (industry survival), with mixed financial outcomes depending on country. ⸻ 10. Semiconductors – CHIPS Act (2022 ongoing) • Result: Too early to tell. Billions committed to Intel, TSMC, Micron, Samsung for U.S. fabs. • Government outcome: No financial returns yet, but early signs suggest it’s achieving strategic goals (reshoring chip production, securing supply chains). , but policymakers considered it worthwhile to save the auto industry.:
I can use ChatGPT too: Here’s an overview of key campaign promises Donald Trump made that remain unfulfilled—drawing from fact-checked sources and seasoned reporting: Major Unfulfilled Promises 1. Build the Border Wall and Make Mexico Pay for It Promise: Erect a “great wall” on the southern border, financed by Mexico Outcome: While ~400–453 miles of border barriers were built, the vast majority replaced or reinforced existing structures—not new wall. Mexico never paid for it; U.S. taxpayers footed the bill. CNN Tampa Bay Times Wikipedia +1 2. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Promise: Fully dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and create a better healthcare plan Outcome: Repeal efforts failed in the Senate. The individual mandate penalty was removed, but no replacement plan was passed. Legal challenges continue. DCReport.org Tampa Bay Times Wikipedia leaderarchive-hoyer.house.gov 3. Revitalize Manufacturing Jobs Promise: Spur a significant surge in U.S. manufacturing employment Outcome: Manufacturing job growth remained on par with the Obama years—no dramatic improvement. Notably, promised jobs from Carrier and Foxconn fell well short. DCReport.org +1 Tampa Bay Times 4. Eliminate the National Debt Promise: Eradicate the national debt in eight years Outcome: Instead of shrinking, debt ballooned by trillions. Trump actually added approximately $7.8 trillion to the deficit. perrspectives.com 5. Deport All Undocumented Immigrants Within Two Years Promise: Remove roughly 11 million undocumented individuals rapidly Outcome: Removal declined modestly but far below the promised levels—down to about 10.5 million by 2020. perrspectives.com 6. End Birthright Citizenship Promise: Eliminate automatic citizenship for those born in the U.S. Outcome: An executive action was issued, but courts have blocked it. The Constitution still protects birthright citizenship—meaning unilateral changes are not feasible. BBC AP News 7. Invest $550 Billion in Infrastructure / Create a Federal Infrastructure Fund Promise: Overhaul America’s infrastructure via a new fund Outcome: No major infrastructure bill passed. The proposed fund never materialized, and water infrastructure investment fell to a 30-year low. Stacker Wikipedia Center for American Progress Action 8. Triple ICE Enforcement & Deportations Promise: Hike the number of ICE agents significantly Outcome: ICE workforce numbers actually shrank slightly—from about 5,800 to 5,300 by end of 2019. Newsweek +1 9. Eliminate Common Core Promise: Abolish the educational standards widely used in U.S. schools Outcome: Common Core remains in use in many states; the federal government has no authority to override state education standards. Newsweek 10. Expel China from the WTO Promise: Remove China from the World Trade Organization Outcome: No such expulsion occurred; instead, trade tensions escalated with tariffs but no WTO exit. Newsweek Other Notable Broken Promises Paid Maternity Leave: Only available to federal employees—not universally implemented. DCReport.org Opioid Crisis Action: Day-one pledge unfulfilled; overdose rates remain high. The Washington Informer Ban Sanctuary Cities / Green New Deal: Legislation never produced. The Washington Informer Pushing School Choice Funding: The $20 billion federal investment never passed. Stacker Health Savings Accounts (HSAs): Promise to expand them was not realized. Stacker Marine Corps Expansion: Did not rebuild to the promised 36 battalions. Stacker Hiring Freeze / Smaller Government: Workforce shrank in segments, but overall government size increased. Stacker Wikipedia
The specific tactics of Trump's trade war are odious, and I don't want to minimize that or suggest that they're an appropriate reaction. They're really bad, full stop. *Having said that*, it's no surprise how we got here. As recently as the 1980s, the architects of the Plaza Accord knew what was up: regardless of what economists say, large trade deficits are not politically sustainable, and disruptive protectionism is inevitable if they aren't equalized through some other mechanism. But in this century, currency intervention is heavily disfavored and the WTO purports to prohibit all non-retaliatory trade balancing, so the pressure valves that could prevent a protectionist crash out are sealed tight. President Sanders or President AOC would have conducted a much more orderly demolition of American free trade agreements, but I don't think there was ever a possible story where they survive a trillion dollar trade deficit.
I think WTO/urine ltd is on 2 Nd place
And letting China into the WTO. Some other things he was pretty good at and very likable, but big picture he made some of the biggest geo political mistakes out there.
What 'salt' are you referring to? I don't care for any US administration, the previous one also attacked my country Canada with tariffs and WTO shenanigans.
Srs or no? Clinton allowed Gyna into the WTO full well knowing they wouldn’t follow any of the rules and the flood gates opened / we shipped all the US manufacturing jobs out.
how is this madness allowed to go on with WTO? or has US withdrawn from it?
It’s wild to see India gearing up for a WTO fight over U.S. steel and aluminium tariffs while quietly moving record volumes of Russian oil. You can’t claim to stand for global trade rules in one breath and then sidestep a coordinated sanctions effort in the next. Sanctions only work if enough big players stick to them — BRICS or not. When one of the world’s largest economies undercuts them, it’s not “neutrality,” it’s actively helping the aggressor keep the war going. The problem with BRICS is that it’s not built on shared principles — it’s built on convenience. There’s no commitment to human rights, rule of law, or even basic accountability. If one member breaks international norms, the others don’t call them out; they shield them, or worse, profit off the chaos. That’s why, in situations like Ukraine, BRICS becomes a safe harbor for bad behavior. It gives aggressors markets to sell into, political cover to deflect criticism, and just enough economic lifeline to dodge the real cost of their actions. In the end, it’s not an alternative to Western dominance — it’s an enabler for those who want power without responsibility.
From Ukraine’s side, this isn’t just about tariffs — it’s about survival. Every barrel of Russian oil sold, no matter who buys it, pumps cash straight into the Kremlin’s war chest. That money turns into artillery shells, missiles, and Iranian drones that level apartment blocks and kill civilians. When India calls the U.S. response “unfair trade measures” and threatens WTO retaliation, it reads here as ignoring the fact that this war isn’t a trade dispute — it’s the largest invasion in Europe since WWII. The sanctions aren’t random; they’re part of an international effort (led by countries actually sending billions in aid to Ukraine) to force Russia to the negotiating table by cutting its revenue. If major economies keep buying Russian oil, it undercuts that entire strategy and prolongs the war. From Kyiv’s view, arguing over steel and aluminium while still feeding Moscow’s budget isn’t just bad optics — it’s choosing short-term economic gain over ending a war that’s destroying a nation.
# India plans tariff response to US over steel, aluminium levy Spoiler: They are crying to the WTO. The same WTO whose rulings America has given 0 fucks about under ANY sitting president.
Not enough time has passed yet, we've only had solid tariffs for a few months now, and it's still in the "uncertainty" stage. The Aluminum tariffs alone cost about 100k jobs on both sides of the border, very high paying industrial positions, that's not even factoring in the steel tariffs? Manufacturing is going to be hit hard, especially on products like automobiles that cross the border numerous times (something like 7 times per vehicle?) Yeah nah, that's not happening! Imagine tariffs being applied at every incursion? Might as well open the floodgates for BYD in Canada/Mexico. Why not? Carney has been sticking tight to USMCA being the biding contract it is (as tariffs are only applied on excluded items), and China has been flouting WTO violations on trade. Those will have a price. Everyone else is just a bunch of fucking pussies. Imagine having to bribe a manbaby just to have contracts HE SIGNED HIMSELF to be abided by? I hope the stock market holds up!
Approximately 38% of Canadian exports to the U.S. were traded under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in 2024, despite roughly 86% of exports being eligible for duty-free treatment under the agreement. Many businesses, particularly those with lower tariffs under the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s "most-favored nation" principle, didn't bother with the necessary paperwork to claim preferential treatment under CUSMA. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Eligible but not claimed: A significant portion of Canadian exports to the U.S. are eligible for CUSMA benefits, but many businesses don't bother with the paperwork to certify their products' origin, particularly if they already benefit from low tariffs under the WTO's "most-favored nation" clause. CUSMA compliance and tariffs: Trading outside CUSMA can mean higher U.S. tariffs, especially after a Trump-era carve-out. For example, tariffs could be 25% or 10% for energy products and potash. Importance of origin certification: To benefit from CUSMA's duty-free treatment (with some exceptions for steel, aluminum, and autos), Canadian exporters must prove their products meet the agreement's rules of origin.
🇺🇸 U.S. Domestic Impact 1. Short-Term Price Shock (Paradoxically Downward) • U.S. copper prices dropped 18% after the announcement. That’s likely due to: • Expectations of demand destruction (buyers backing off). • A potential glut of domestic copper as cheaper imports disappear but end users can’t afford higher costs. • Panic selling in futures markets. 2. Higher Costs for U.S. Manufacturers • Sectors hit hard: • Construction (copper wiring, plumbing) • Automotive and EVs (copper is essential in batteries and electronics) • Electronics (circuit boards, processors) • Higher input costs reduce margins or get passed to consumers—resulting in inflationary pressure on finished goods. 3. Boost to Domestic Miners • Companies like Freeport-McMoRan and Southern Copper might benefit—temporarily—as import competition drops and demand shifts to U.S. suppliers. 4. Retaliation Risk • Major exporters (e.g., Chile, Peru, Mexico, Canada) may retaliate with their own tariffs, hurting U.S. exports in agriculture, tech, or energy. ⸻ 🌎 Global Consequences 1. Global Market Disruption • The U.S. is a major copper consumer, not just a producer. • Cutting the U.S. out of global copper trade affects pricing, contracts, and logistics worldwide. • Other countries may adjust by finding new buyers or dumping excess supply, depressing global prices. 2. Copper-Rich Countries Lose Revenue • Chile and Peru, the world’s top exporters, could see GDP impacts if copper export volume drops or prices collapse globally. • Currency devaluation, rising unemployment in mining sectors, and political unrest could follow. 3. Supply Chain Realignments • Countries that used the U.S. as a distribution hub may now pivot to China, India, or the EU. • Manufacturers may relocate production to avoid tariffs and reduce copper costs. 4. Increased Use of Substitutes or Black Market Trade • If copper remains prohibitively expensive in the U.S., some companies might: • Shift to aluminum or fiber optics where feasible. • Smuggle or reroute imports through tariff-exempt third countries (a loophole risk). ⸻ 📉 Market & Political Fallout Copper-Linked Markets • Commodities markets would go into turmoil. • Expect volatility in mining stocks, commodities ETFs, and emerging market bonds tied to resource exports. Trade Alliances • This move could strain U.S. relations with WTO partners. • Opens the door for China or the EU to strengthen ties with copper-rich Latin America.
“Enforce” does not mean to add something, it means to execute the law as is. I think you might be confused about how offshoring works. Offshoring jobs, so to speak, doesn’t work by a US company hiring a foreign worker. There is way too much red tape and taxation that applies to having a direct foreign workforce. What happens is either a large company establishes a subsidiary in a foreign country or a small one hires a staffing company in that country. Then the subsidiary or staffing company, which is domestic to the foreign country, hires locals. The US company (parent company or otherwise) then pays the subsidiary/staffing company for services, which are performed by the subsidiary/staffing company. The money that is paid by the US company is then used towards for salaries and other expenses by the subsidiary/staffing company, but the US company isn’t paying wages directly - they are paying for the output of the subsidiary/staffing company. While this output would have been produced by domestic workers, the relationship between the US company and the foreign workers is not a direct employment relationship, and there is no legal one-to-one replacement of jobs. For example, Amazon Inc doesn’t fire John and hire Ram to do his job. Instead, Amazon Inc downsizes an entire division and pays Amazon (India) - a wholly owned subsidiary) - to perform that division’s work wholesale. Amazon (India) then hires whatever staff is necessary to do that work. It might be just as much staff as was let go. It might be less. It might be more. They may be better trained or not. But you can’t directly trace John’s job, because it doesn’t exist anymore. What happens is that John’s job is now part of a service that is traded between two companies operating in two different countries. The only way to tariff this process is to tariff services. Nobody in the history of global trade has taxed services. Ever. And the US is a major beneficiary of this. Companies in the US get to sell services to countries around the world without tariffs - and the US sells many, many more services than it buys. Tariffs are also bilateral. That’s how the WTO works, regulating the way tariffs can be imposed and putting in a minimum threshold of trade between countries. If the US starts tariffing services, other countries will follow suit. And the US is way more vulnerable to tariffs on services than other countries. We sell SaaS, we sell consulting services, we sell Adobe and Microsoft subscriptions, Amazon Web Services, technical know how, education and training, and thousands of other services that nobody tariffs because thus far, tariffing services has been unthinkable. It’s a really bad idea.
These guys want to see the whole world poor and fuck up all the stuff that made the world rich we shouldn't ever let China into the WTO.
I hope it changes when he is out of office… but even Joe Biden didn’t remove a lot of the tariffs trump implemented in his first term. Which is a bit concerning. The grievances of the US when it comes to trade and the WTO have predated trump.
Have enjoyed this banter and I do believe we’ve been mostly cordial/respectful, so I am appreciative with that. These trade terms are not trumpisms though. They are just labeled that because it’s a perceived negative. The ebbs and flow of trade across the world has tightened (tariff wise) and loosened (tariff wise) on a cyclical basis dating back to the 40s. Most of the time major changes came as a result of larger scale phenomenons (wars is a big one earlier on), less so as you got into the 70s and 80s. Non tariff barriers become more widely used under “free trade” agreements in an effort to retain some of what is given up under free trade (or a perceived loss in free trade). The WTO for cryin out loud started regulating those barriers in the 90s as they got to be so large and protectionist. I believe that countries are independent, sovereign, and can do whatever they want (not talking about genocide etc). This isn’t to say they can’t make decisions to regulate differently, but don’t self righteously claim free trade or openness on the front end but lock things down on the back end. It’s disingenuous and not free trade and certainly isn’t fair. The European Union is one of the most self righteous in this respect. Go back to the inflation reduction act signed a few years back and see what the EU did as a result of it, see how they considered that a massive slap in the face by Biden. The European Union has chosen and constantly chooses to be behind and respond to other nations desire to grow and expand industry (clean energy in the case of the IRA), their response? Let’s attack digital services, broadly dominated by the United States, and criticize its efforts to develop a more robust energy policy. Non tariff barriers vary across economies and political structures. Capitalism is one of the most important structures in democratic societies given how capital flows AND the dual wielding power of separate public and private funding arms. Non tariff barriers water down capitalistic characteristics such as supply/demand (as well as many others). The US isn’t some higher authority that establishes what goes, we use non tariff barriers as well and much like the US tax code, over time this bureaucratic (on both sides) mess gets to be so large it becomes encumbering - in both developed and emerging industries and countries. All this to say, it’s an extremely convoluted mess and is not as easy or as complicated as any group of people would espouse. Understanding that, I have no issues with a country putting their foot down momentarily to say “let’s look at this”. I can look through all the political charades that we see in the headlines, each side can’t avoid the annoying need to fluff their political base but I guarantee that among our true allies they can all sit down together and reasonably come to agreements. Maybe I’m too glass half full there, but I’m also willing to have history prove me wrong. This isn’t about claiming which side wins in agreements, if two parties reach an agreement it must be understood they did so because at some point it was in their best interest to do so. Sorry this is long winded and i probably veered from my point at one time or another, but overall my point was to say non tariff (or trade) barriers are definitely a well know thing and a tool that is widely used by everyone for well over a half century.
Here's my AI slop counterpart The newly announced U.S.–Japan trade deal may face significant challenges due to longstanding structural and cultural barriers in both countries. Here’s a breakdown of why it could struggle, with specific examples: --- ### 🇯🇵 **Japan’s Reluctance to Import More U.S. Rice** 1. **Cultural Preferences**: - Japanese consumers have a strong preference for domestically grown rice, particularly varieties like *Koshihikari*, prized for their taste and texture. - U.S. rice, often grown in California or the South, is seen as inferior in quality and not suited to traditional Japanese dishes. 2. **Historical Resistance**: - Japan has a history of resisting rice imports to protect its domestic farmers. Even under WTO agreements, Japan has only reluctantly allowed minimal rice imports, often storing or using them for non-consumption purposes (like animal feed or food aid). 3. **Example**: - In the 1990s, Japan agreed to import a minimum amount of foreign rice under WTO rules. Much of this rice was never sold to consumers—it was stored or disposed of, indicating a lack of real demand. --- ### 🚗 **U.S. Cars and the Japanese Market** 1. **Size and Infrastructure Mismatch**: - Many American cars are larger than Japanese roads and parking spaces can accommodate. Japan’s urban infrastructure favors compact vehicles. - Kei cars (small, efficient vehicles) dominate the Japanese market due to tax and insurance benefits. 2. **Consumer Preferences**: - Japanese consumers prefer domestic brands like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, which are known for reliability, fuel efficiency, and after-sales service. - U.S. automakers have struggled to adapt their models to local tastes and driving conditions. 3. **Example**: - Ford and General Motors have repeatedly tried and failed to gain a foothold in Japan. Ford exited the Japanese market entirely in 2016, citing poor sales and lack of profitability. --- ### Broader Structural Issues - **Non-Tariff Barriers**: Japan has complex regulatory standards and certification processes that can act as de facto trade barriers. - **Market Entrenchment**: Japanese industries are tightly knit, with long-standing supplier relationships that are hard for foreign companies to penetrate. --- ### Conclusion While the trade deal may look promising on paper, the reality is that **deep-rooted consumer preferences, infrastructure mismatches, and regulatory hurdles** make it unlikely to succeed in significantly boosting U.S. exports of rice or automobiles to Japan. Would you like a visual infographic summarizing these points?
True but its not a necessity for them to import it due to WTO rules.
This is what ChatGPT says: What Trump is Claiming: 1. “Massive Deal with Japan” – He says the U.S. made the biggest deal ever with Japan. 2. ”$550 Billion Investment” – He claims Japan will invest $550 billion into the U.S. economy. 3. “U.S. gets 90% of the profits” – The U.S. will supposedly get the vast majority of the earnings. 4. “Hundreds of thousands of jobs” – He says this deal will generate a massive number of American jobs. 5. “Japan will open trade” – Including access to their markets for cars, trucks, rice, and agricultural products. 6. “15% tariffs” – Japan will supposedly pay the U.S. reciprocal tariffs of 15%. 7. “Great relationship with Japan” – He frames this as a strengthening of U.S.-Japan ties. ⸻ Reality Check: 1. $550 Billion Investment? That number is extremely high and likely exaggerated or made-up. Japan’s total foreign direct investment into the U.S. in 2023 was around $775 billion cumulative, built over decades. A single $550 billion deal would be larger than Japan’s entire annual government budget. There’s no public record of such a deal. 2. “90% of the profits” There’s no basis in international trade for one country taking a percentage of “profits.” Trade doesn’t work that way. Countries trade goods and services, not profits. This is likely nonsensical or political exaggeration. 3. “Hundreds of thousands of jobs” That would depend on the specifics of the deal, and again, there’s no evidence of such a massive agreement actually happening. Job projections require detailed breakdowns—not just a statement. 4. Opening to U.S. goods Japan and the U.S. already have trade relations. During Trump’s presidency, there was a limited trade deal signed in 2019 involving $7 billion in U.S. agricultural exports and some digital trade—but nothing even close to what he’s describing here. 5. 15% reciprocal tariffs Japan typically maintains low tariffs and is part of free trade agreements like the CPTPP. A 15% tariff would be a big shift and likely violate WTO rules or Japan’s own policies. There’s no evidence this tariff was agreed to. Which I was thinking first. I know Trump trying really hard but most times talks to us like we kids or so excited to share the news he just spit out just anything
|Claim|Problem| |:-|:-| |**$550 Billion Investment**|**unprecedented**This is —nearly Japan’s entire annual budget (\~$1T). Highly improbable without details.| |**90% of profits to the U.S.**|**sovereign gift**No investment deal works like this unless it’s a , which is implausible.| |**Reciprocal tariffs (15%)**|The U.S. doesn't normally announce this kind of “tariff deal” with allies. It implies Japan is agreeing to be taxed more, which would harm their exporters.| |**Trade opening on rice/cars**|Japan already has open trade with the U.S. via several WTO commitments and bilateral deals.| |**Job claims**|Vague and unverifiable without knowing the investment type or industry.|
Japanese imports to the US will have a tariff of 15%, down from the threatened 25%. US imports to Japan, the tariffs remain unchanged. The art of the deal, baby! So, I asked chatgpt to explain it, and it suggested: You're absolutely right to question this — on the surface, it does not look like a balanced deal, and it’s very fair to ask: how can this be considered a win for the U.S. if Japan keeps its tariffs, and the U.S. lowers its own? Let’s break it down clearly: 🔍 What actually happened in the 2025 U.S.–Japan trade deal? U.S. was threatening to impose 25% tariffs on Japanese autos and parts (a big portion of Japan's exports to the U.S.). Instead, the U.S. agreed to impose only a 15% flat tariff. Japan did not reduce its tariffs on U.S. goods — it kept them at WTO Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) levels. In fact, Japan now adds a 15% reciprocal tariff on select U.S. goods (in response to the U.S. tariff), starting August 1, 2025. 🇺🇸 So… how is this being sold as a “win” for the U.S.? Avoided auto supply chain disruption The 25% threat was a negotiating tactic — and U.S. automakers (especially those with Japanese supply chains) were worried it would hurt them too. Settling at 15% is less damaging, yet still assertive. Political optics The U.S. administration can claim it “got Japan to respond” with reciprocal tariffs, showing “strength” without completely derailing trade. Strategic signaling to China/EU This may be less about Japan itself and more about sending a message to other trade partners: We’re willing to strike hardline deals — but also to compromise when it’s strategic. ⚖️ But here’s the reality: It’s not a clear economic win. You're right that: Japan didn’t give up any new market access or tariff cuts for U.S. goods. U.S. exporters gained no fresh concessions (unlike in earlier mini-deals from 2019). Japan now imposes new tariffs on U.S. goods, effectively neutralizing any U.S. advantage. 🧠 The Verdict This deal is mostly symbolic. It: Prevents escalation. Lets both sides say they’re standing strong. Maintains auto trade (vital to both economies). But in concrete economic terms, the U.S. made more concessions than Japan did. So if someone frames this as a “90% profit” for the U.S., it’s spin — not substance. Woul
>U.S. World Trade Organization commitments require Japan to import 682,000 MT of rice annually, of which the U.S. ships about 50%. A maximum of 100,000 tons of imported rice reaches the commercial market in unbroken form thus market access improvements are required to allow true market access for U.S. rice. Because the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) was ratified excluding the U.S., additional access for U.S. rice into Japan is a priority for the U.S. rice industry in the upcoming U.S.-Japan negotiations. Lol. WTO forces them already to get 680k MT of which the US is 340k MT. Its wonderful being the occupying force. After these trade deals are done it might as well not look like they are even actual independent nations.
The majority of imported rice in Japan ends up being used for overseas aid or stored for emergencies. This allows them to fulfill their WTO quotas without directly impacting the domestic market. Even with the mess they have made of planning and distribution this last year (rice shortage but close to record rice exports?), foreign rice has not been pushed heavily into the market.
They're required to under WTO obligations. Household consumption trends to domestic rice by a huge margin.
Japan is required to import rice as part of it's WTO obligations, apparently. That doesn't necessarily mean demand for US rice is there. If it were such a crisis, I wouldn't be able to get inported Japanese rice at my local markets in the states.
Saying this out loud just to help better understand: we struck a deal with Japan for them to have the ability to buy our cars and rice? And does this 15% tariff supersede the deal they have with the WTO? Because Japan has a WTO deal in which they can buy rice tariff free and the US supplies some of that rice. So it’s not really a deal with Japan, more a deal with WTO. I feel like it’s also important to note that none of this is probably real. God dammit why did I give this even that much thought….
Naw, he hates the UN. The US was part of establishing the WTO as well, and has spent the last decade or so blocking appointees to the court. It's completely without judges now so it can't pass any judgements. US create -> US lose ruling -> US fuck over
Last year Indonesia had an average [tariff](https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/tariff_profiles/id_e.pdf) (averaged across all imports) of 8.0% (trade weighted 5.7%) according to the WTO. They had this because they wanted to protect domestic industry. For context the US was [3.3% average, 2.2% trade weighted average](https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/daily_update_e/tariff_profiles/US_e.pdf). These low gdp countries are not happy to have this tariff put on them. It will be extremely destructive for their economies, and put millions of people into poverty. They are accepting these terms because the US is the worlds largest consumer market, represents nearly 40% of global consumption, and being fully cut off would be brutal for their economies. And yes you are correct that the US is so uncompetitive price wise that it will not be able to export much to Indonesia even with the new 0% tariff rate.
If the U.S. products don’t meet product standards that third world countries can meet, then that’s an issue on American quality, or they can complain in the WTO about differing standards for differing countries. But what it’s actually about, is that America just has lower standards, and the lower standards can’t meet EU minimal standards for safety and health. Go back to reading and get off Fox News if you believe otherwise. The EU is in the business of free trade, not petty tirades.
As with all things in life, there’s no simple answer here. Trump 1.0 had 3 primary tariffs that actually stuck. Section 232 tariff of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. A tariff on solar panels out of China and tariffs on washing machines. There was a lot of back and forth from this and many countries levied tariffs in response. The washing machine tariffs were set to auto-reduce annually and expired under Biden in 2023. The solar tariffs were upheld. Biden negotiated additional exemptions from section 232. Interestingly, the WTO in 2022 ruled against the US on section 232, determining that there was no national security reason for them. This decision went against the US stance on external organizations determining what constitutes a national security risk. It possible if not likely that not rolling back 232 had more to do with not capitulating to the WTO.
But if we use the same standard, China would not have been allowed to join the WTO in the first place.
Germany has seen the productivity wage gap grow since China entered the WTO. The US gap has been growing since 1973. This is unsustainable for any country.
Yes, but you have to keep in mind that the sanctions where in effect world wide for China's IT behemoth. That's also the reason why China launched multiple complaints at the WTO. In respect to the importance of the export markets for the US: if I'm not mistaken the EU sits on the fourth place, after Canada, Mexico and China.
The WTO is a broken system and the United States is one of very few countries that is willing to call it out for its failures. People should read USTR's [WTO at 30 Report](https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/reports/2025/2025%20Trade%20Policy%20Agenda%20WTO%20at%2030%20and%202024%20Annual%20Report%2002282025%20--%20FINAL.pdf) (starts on page 23) for a concise breakdown of the issues with the WTO and why reform is needed. Not to mention the other 300 pages of trade barriers that the United States faces in other countries. I personally know several of the authors that contributed to this report and they are career trade officials that have served as many as four presidents, so while the tone of the messaging may have changed, the substance and non-partisan nature of the issues has not.
What a brilliant idea to kick the US out of the WTO. The ultimate coup for China. The US was the one country which lobbied hard to bring China into the WTO and now China can play a pivotal role in kicking out the US off the WTO. LOL.
WTO are notoriously slow in delivering a verdict, like 2-4 years. China had and maybe still does, just ban imports of certain products at certain times for nefarious reasons. Funny though before it goes to WTO, those sanctions are dropped.
By the way, it is very noticeable that the Biden Admin blockaded the WTO as well, so the American exceptionalism isn't down to Trump. I really think we are approaching a pint where the west would be better off treating the US like they treat China. A systematic competitor, not an ally.
The Biden era decision to continue to cripple the WTO has come back to bite the US in the behind. This shows that no matter how "well-intentioned" a decision is, as long as it tries to circumvent long standing institutions and global norms, there will eventually be repercussions. The chickens have come to roost.
# "Unnecessary trade barriers": US hits out at India's dairy certificate requirements at WTO Not even India wants that GAHBIDGE that America calls dairy.
That should make the people in the WTO happy.
Haha from a thread in worldnews about India crying to the WTO anjd threatening retaliatory tariffs. ">!$724 million!< is no small amount. Looks like India’s done being quiet" risitas\_laughing.aiff. >!$724 million!!< Not a small amount! risitas\_laughing\_harder.tiff
#India tells WTO it may impose retaliatory tariffs worth $724 million on U.S. imports Only 724 million, lol. Whining to the WTO, an organization whose rulings no president has ever given a shit about.
Its the same with lumber. America has had import duties on Canadian soft wood lumber since the 80s. Theyve taken us to court 3 times, both at the WTO and at the dispute resolution court of the former nafta agreement. We've won all three cases. The american lumber industry claims the Canadian government subsidizes our softwood industry because our stumpage fees are cheaper due to the fact that most of our lumber is on crown land. Courts find that our stumpage fees are on par with other nations around the world and that american stumpage fees are artificially high due to the fact that most of your soft wood lumber is on privately owned land.
I'm American, and most Americans don't even know about the WTO, let alone that America is in it. I always felt this Simpsons clip summed up Americans perfectly: https://youtu.be/bl3njub9fno
I'm Canadian, from a forestry town fulla mills. I know what America thinks of the WTO
I'm surprised to see someone else with an accurate assessment of America and the WTO, lol.
# India proposes retaliatory duties at WTO against US tariffs on autos Yeah good luck with that, America didn't give a shit about the WTO or WTO rulings under ANY president.
I bought 10 shares of WTO right before they went up. Should’ve bought more.
Yeah and it's going to take policy to change that. For example and I forget the details of the last trade agreement with Mexico if they don't pay their workers X dollars then the products they import are going to be tariffs to hell. So it's like deal with all that or manufacture here and get tax benefits. Chinese solar have been tariffs or outright banned due to trade practices by the US/WTO and slave labor. That's why they send them all to Africa now because there's no ban there.
people, it doesn't matter how many times the orange idiot says other countries pay a tariff it doesn't make it true, a tariff is paid at the port of entry by the importing company, to which those companies add that cost into the cost of their product so the American consumer is the one who ends up paying the tariff. There is not a name for what trumpL is talking about as that's not how trade works and in fact it goes against WTO rules against an importing country charging an exporting country a tax, because you know.... that's how the fucking mafia does business not a country, its literally exploitation.
To put it simply, the trade imbalance would have went away instead of getting worse. China has manipulated the CNY to peg it to stay weaker than the USD. A country with a weaker currency usually exports more to the stronger currency country while the stronger currency country will import more. Theoretically, without currency manipulation, the weaker currency will naturally strengthen against the stronger currency to make them more equal. This would naturally balance out a trade imbalance between countries without legislation or intervention needed. The US has sued in the WTO and complained constantly to China to de-peg their currency and allow it to free float. It has remained about 6:1 consistently
This is not trivial. US rice market is huge. Japan maintains a "minimum access" system under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, allowing an annual tariff-free import quota of 770,000 tons of rice, with the U.S. supplying about 45% (346,000 tons in 2024). However, imports outside this quota face a high tariff of ¥341 per kilogram, which translates to roughly 400-778% depending on global rice prices. This effectively restricts additional U.S. rice from entering the market competitively. In 2024, Japan faced a severe rice shortage, leading to skyrocketing domestic prices and increased interest in foreign rice, like California’s Calrose. Despite this, Japan’s government and private sector have been slow to expand imports beyond the quota due to political pressure from domestic farmers and politicians, who view rice as a sensitive agricultural sector. This resistance fuels the perception of restricted access.
The Americans pushed for China’s entry into the WTO. You created this juggernaut. https://www.queensu.ca/sps/sites/spswww/files/uploaded_files/Events/Trade/3%20-%20Tan%20How%20the%20WTO%20Changed%20China.pdf
Not really. First, it is only 285% after it hits a 3.65% of the market quota. Which is still about $1 billion. This tarrif is considered legal under the WTO to prevent dumping of US dairy into the Canadian market. Which dumping of products into another country is considered a harmful act by the international community, and the WTO specifically allows anti dumping practices. As the US subsidies up to 72% of the dairy market. This year alone, direct subsidy payments to dairy farms are expected to hit about 20-25% of the US dairy market. Not to mention, the US also has a dairy quota tarrif on Canada. Tho, it is much smaller, and I believe the US hasn't imported more than 40-50% of that quota. While Canada imports near that quota limit. On top of all that, Trump is willing to blow up a free trade agreement, he signed and created, where almost $800 billion in trade of goods is done annually between two countries where pretty much 100% of manufactured goods between Canada and the US aren't tarrifed and 92%(both ways) of agricultural goods aren't tarrifed.
Got it. Here's a plain text version, concise and packed with Cialdini's principles: SRM is quietly becoming the Trump-Sun meme proxy. Rebranding to Tron Inc. with \\$100M equity plus 220M warrants at \\$0.50 = \\$210M in firepower. Justin Sun advising. Eric Trump expected to join. Sun has credibility as TRX founder, BitTorrent CEO, and former WTO diplomat (authority). Tied into Trump’s circle, even attending private dinners (liking). This is a micro-float Nasdaq stock with direct meme exposure, yet still flying under the radar (scarcity). TRON network is processing over \\$20B daily and growing faster than Ethereum for stablecoins (social proof). They’re launching staking plus dividends (reciprocity). They’re literally changing their name to Tron Inc. to commit (consistency). DWAC was phase one. SRM might be phase two. Market still thinks it's a toy company.
So, here's the thing that most people, especially Trump, don't understand. Real trade agreements (not these fake ones he keeps claiming happened over a phone call) are very long, complex legal documents and they always include an enormous annex or even a separate agreement on what are called Rules of Origin. These are some serious complex regulations and they can run to hundreds of pages. The Rules of Origin detail how exactly each country will adjudicate whether a product "comes from" the other country. A good is not determine to be Chinese because it arrives on a boat from China. Tariffs are applied goods manufactured in China, not goods on a boat from China. So, a widget arriving from Sweden that contains 60% Chinese parts might very well be ruled to be a Chinese good (again, it all depends on the details in those hundreds of pages of rules). And then maybe the WTO rules will come into play. Who knows, since TACO hasnt actually got any real signed agreements with actual Rules of Origin. So, much shorter answer, "No, you can't do that. Customs inspectors aren't dumb enough to have never thought of that."
so china said - f off, we have the minerals and we will see you at the WTO - US clowns knowing without critical minerals the us is boned try to save face! Shame the VP called them peasants!
And China could just not break the agreement of the WTO too, but here we are.
This is the most basic of economics. The offshoring of manufacturing and importing of foreign labor have driven down American wages. Period. End of discussion. This has led to the eradication of the middle class and increasing wealth gap. NAFTA and WTO- and anyone who pushed “global trade”- fucked the American people.