This message will probably be heard every few days from every different industry, as leaders of large companies take turns asking, “you didn’t really think we could move production to the US in a month, did you?”.
26 Likes
China clearly wants to be self-sufficient in the aircraft sector in case there is a major conflict with the US one day:
China has ordered domestic airlines to suspend deliveries of Boeing aircraft due to the latest escalation of the trade war with the United States.
Bloomberg News reports this, citing sources.
Beijing has also urged Chinese airlines to suspend all purchases of aircraft-related equipment and spare parts from American companies.
Over the next two decades, China is expected to account for 20 percent of global aircraft demand, and in 2018, about 25 percent of Boeing BA +1.56%'s production landed in the country. Currently, just over ten Boeing 737 Max models are being prepared for Chinese airlines.
Boeing’s shares fell 2.4 percent in US pre-market trading shortly after the news.
16 Likes
News from Trump’s staff indicates that a trade agreement is being reached with Britain. With the rest of Europe, however, it is difficult to achieve one.
Reason: Trump loved the British Queen Mother and admires the King (her son).
18 Likes
Any surprises?
Now this either:
a) Elevated to a higher level (Trump - von der Leyen)
b) Tariffs are imposed on both sides. Also possible digital tariffs from Europe for big tech
26 Likes
The interview’s focus is so much on the trade war that I’m sharing it here in addition to the company thread. Dimon does not support the trade war. Other topics are also included. Duration 38 min.
5 Likes
Here’s an illustration of how tariffs affect the selling price of a simple product (car floor mat set). I hadn’t even thought that retailers’ margins would play such a big role in the product’s price. Tariffs increase the product’s price by about ten dollars, but retail margins multiply the change into tens of dollars.
The link below contains a large article discussing the topic.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ground-zero-china-trade-boom-120000112.html
Edit. That diagram explains how Temu can sell goods so cheaply vs. brick-and-mortar stores.
17 Likes
I changed the thread name to Tariff War → Trade War, because in addition to tariffs
- On April 12, 2025, China implemented export restrictions on rare earth metals,
- On April 14, 2024, China imposed import bans on aircraft parts and aircraft, and
- On April 9, 2025 (Nvidia only reported this on April 15), the USA expanded export bans on Nvidia’s chips to China to also include H20 chips and AMD’s MI308 chips and other similar products.
@Marianne_Palmu’s latest scenarios for the trade war:
30 Likes
Hong Kong suspends goods deliveries to the USA via airmail (Reuters):
Hongkong Post said on Wednesday it had suspended goods mail services by sea to the United States and will suspend its air mail postal service for items containing goods from April 27 due to “bullying” U.S. tariffs.
When sending items to the United States, Hong Kong people “should be prepared to pay exorbitant and unreasonable fees due to the U.S.'s unreasonable and bullying acts,” Hongkong Post said in a statement.
13 Likes
And perhaps the trade war will take such turns that, according to that pattern, goods will soon be marketed more aggressively directly to the American consumer, so that the American intermediaries, who take a large slice, will be cut out entirely. See, for example, the promotional video in this X post. It explains which Chinese subcontractors produce some Lululemon products and how a product priced at $100 in the USA can cost $6-8 in China. From that $6-8, one can certainly pay several hundred percent in tariffs and it would still be affordable if one doesn’t have to pay the massive cuts of current wholesalers and retailers.
8 Likes
The USA has tried to rally the world to an anti-China front and has apparently included a condition in tariff negotiations that trade should not be conducted with China.
Furthermore, the USA aims to get its own meat, for example, onto the market and refuses to understand why some countries do not accept it. From the USA’s perspective, this is “unfair competition and they are being exploited” when, for example, Europe has tougher standards for everyone, including its own production.
Europe has now stated that these conditions are not acceptable:
29 Likes
In my opinion, it would have been surprising if the EU and USA had already reached an agreement on tariffs. It’s only been a little over a couple of weeks since Mr. President presented tariff percentages from a piece of cardboard at the podium. The Trump administration is probably taking a tough stance at this stage to stretch the negotiation framework as much as possible for its own goals. At least that would fit well with their previous style. The bargaining phase could well last for some time. It was also already seen that, if necessary, the administration pulls the emergency brake if pressure, for example, in the markets grows too much. In my opinion, it’s a good sign that the administration feels the pain of the US market/economy/business sector and has to take it into account. In my opinion, that speaks in favor of the idea that these tariffs can still largely be gotten rid of, because especially high tariffs would hit the US so hard and in many ways. I don’t believe the administration would tolerate any recession, because it would dramatically erode the administration’s support and would be a huge failure.
5 Likes
Listening to the Senate sessions and what Trump’s representative/supporter senators have explained, it seems that the USA is now playing a tough double or nothing game.
They have entered negotiations solely with USA’s interests in mind. For example, regarding tariffs, they manipulate figures to their liking and refuse to consider the local legislation of different countries. Every cost is turned into a “tariff directed against America,” and it doesn’t matter if domestic producers pay the same taxes. American products must simply gain privileged access to markets, and “brazen exploitation” must end.
The same goes for meat, for example. The message is “America is being brazenly cheated” when meat is not accepted. They remain silent about the reasons why American meat or other similar products are not acceptable to everyone. Facts don’t matter. Phrases like “We have by far the best meat in the world” are included.
America’s attitude must change; surely, those negotiations cannot succeed with such an aggressive approach. It’s easier to predict an America boycott will only expand when attempts are made to dictate what other countries can do. And this, of course, would likely benefit China the most. Four years of this, and the USA will be in a very different situation than it perhaps was at the beginning of 2025.
41 Likes
Was there also a trade war during Trump’s first term? I recall there were some tariffs back then, but does this term differ significantly from the previous one? Does anyone who followed the previous term more closely have any recollections?
4 Likes
The Corona pandemic and the subsequent stimulus then complicated matters much more than any other disruptions.
3 Likes
It indeed seems that very difficult negotiations are ahead, as there appears to be more at stake than just economic terms.
7 Likes
Ezra Klein and Tom Friedman’s discussion on the progression of the trade war. Tom Friedman is particularly a China specialist. In the early 2000s, he had a very positive view of China’s development (democracy and economy), but later changed his stance as China drifted towards autocracy under Xi Jinping’s rule. He also praised DJT for his tougher stance on China during his first term. Klein is more of a liberal commentator, so there is certainly some bias here.
In this podcast, the duo discusses the outcome of the trade war between China and the US. Both of their views are quite pessimistic regarding the US’s chances.
The gentlemen see a major problem in the current US administration effectively waging war against a China that existed 15 years ago. The manufacturing of trinkets (which, for example, shone through in JD Vance’s ‘peasant’ comments) was still at the core of China’s economy in the early 2000s. Now, however, China is surpassing the United States in innovation. This development is further exacerbated for the US by Trump’s war against the ‘woke’ university world, which could further tip the scales in China’s favor regarding innovation in the future. The Chinese had reportedly seriously inquired from Friedman whether their own Cultural Revolution had begun in the United States, as universities and academics are being “persecuted” by the state for heterodoxy (Woke, etc.). One can undeniably see parallels here with China’s '60s turmoil.
Furthermore, concern was expressed over the current administration’s desire to invest in industries that certainly won’t preserve the US’s position of technological dominance (coal mines, oil drilling, internal combustion engine cars…).
If the trade war against China was to be won by bringing manufacturing back to the West and stopping the theft of Western IP by China, it should have been done ~15 years ago. Now it’s too late.
Democrats didn’t receive much praise either. Their view towards China is also very pessimistic, a so-called ‘Trump lite’ approach.
Another point was the clumsiness and general incompetence of initiating the trade war. If and when China is seen as the biggest (only?) real threat to the US, the US immediately threw its biggest trump card away by starting a trade war against its friends and allies as well. If the US had first gathered a coalition of allies in its corner and then jointly confronted China, the probability of success would have been better. Now that card is already ruined because which of the allies still trusts the United States after this mess?
As in the recently linked news in the thread, the United States is now demanding Europe to take their ‘steroid bull’ and simultaneously join the trade war against China, with less than 3 months’ time. It is indeed very crude and amateurish activity.
What alternatives did the gentlemen offer? The situation is difficult, but the proposal was to gradually dismantle trade barriers between the US and China, with the assumption that China would invest in the United States and cease exploiting global trade. For example, Chinese car factories would be established in the US on the condition that they would be joint ventures, and the United States would gain Chinese know-how through this (i.e., practically the opposite of what happened 10-20 years ago). Chinese companies would be given, for example, infrastructure projects in the US, but initially very limited and always in cooperation with US companies, so that no foul play would occur, and more would be learned at the same time.
An interesting discussion. I recommend listening to it.
34 Likes
Next, Italy’s Meloni heads to Trump’s talks…
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/the-european-union-braces-for-more-us-tariffs-despite-talks.html
6 Likes