Your example about small countries is irrelevant because nobody cares about the trade deficit between the U.S. and Bangladesh. Virtually the entire trade deficit is the EU, China, Japan, Vietnam, Canada, and Taiwan. The EU, Japan, and China are big, diversified economies and there is no reason we should have a trade deficit with them.
Yeah, it is not like someone would create a U.S. tariff policy with tariffs set based on (goods trade deficit with the US) / (bilateral trade volume with the US), irrespective of size of the country, because no one is stupid enough to care about the (goods or general) trade deficit between the U.S. and, e.g., Bangladesh.
Virtually our whole trade deficit is China, the EU, Japan, India, Vietnam, and Canada. Should we have just singled those countries out by name and grouped them together for purposes of imposing tariffs? Don't you think lumping Japan together with China like that would piss them off even more than tariffs would do anyway?
Except for the person in charge of America's trade policy, lmao
"He won't do massive tariffs, it's just posturing"
"He won't do mass deportations, it's just posturing"
"He doesn't care about those countries, it's just posturing"
"He won't ignore due process, it's just posturing"
"He won't ignore SCOTUS's orders, it's just posturing"
Meanwhile you're attributing beliefs like "trade deficits are great" to the other side so you can win imaginary arguments with them. Absolutely hilarious stuff.
I didn't say he won't put tariffs on those countries, I'm said he doesn't care about them one way or the other. Those countries have tariffs because Trump wanted a simple, blanket policy.
What is simple about tariff rates changing literally day by day via all-caps blurted tantrums on Truth Social? I am actually curious for your direct answer to this.
He thinks that a trade deficit is an actual subsidy, giveaway, or "loss" to the other country. He has said it for literal decades. Sure, he may care more about bigger thieves than smaller ones, but all signs point to him to caring about every instance of "loss" to foreign countries. Both his words and his actions are in accordance with my theory. Neither is in accordance with yours.
He is an actual stupid person surrounded by sycophants. It's a really consistent explanation! No need for this whole "he didn't say that → he didn't mean it → he's just posturing → it's for simplicity → it's Good Actually" thing.
How do you know that?
He didn't say he was going to do the thing. It's liberal propaganda.
Okay, he did say he was going to do the thing, but he's not. It's just posturing.
Okay, he did the thing. But it's good! Everything will be better!
Okay, it's not making everything better. But it will soon! 5D chess!
Okay, everything is worse. But it's liberals' fault.
Okay, it's his fault. But we deserve it.
If it is just posturing, do you worry Trump will improperly benefit from it? UAE investing $2BN in his memecoin today. Maybe the posturing will lead to other countries making similar "investments."
In world wars, America never wanted to stop being militarily capable so they spend almost a trillion ensuring there's no deficits of the ability to wage war.
No one in government prior to trump was operating under the idea that all deficits are ok. Strategic deficits are bad. Now all deficits are bad, which is not the case, at all.
America would not suffer any reasonable damage having a coffee bean deficit. Or a tea deficit. Or beer deficit.
The terms of the current regimes debate is simply trying to use the word tariff in place of national sales tax and corrupting it as a Nazi isolationism tool.
Most of the trade deficits create a security dependency, because you need to secure the entire supply and skill chain. Prior to World War II, the U.S. had largely demobilized its military. But the U.S. built the world’s largest military virtually overnight thanks to its industrial capacity. At one point a Ford factory was churning out one B24 bomber every hour: https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/94614-how-fords-willow-....
Doing something like that requires a depth of capability the U.S. no longer possesses, but China does. To build warplanes you need, for example, aluminum and titanium machinists. Where are they? In China making Macbook cases.
China has 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the U.S.: https://www.csis.org/analysis/threat-chinas-shipbuilding-emp.... Or if you think the future of warfare is drones instead of planes and ships, guess who makes all the drones?
I have a trade deficit with my local grocery store. Does that mean I'm being taken advantage of?
Imagine a small country rich in raw materials but whose people are otherwise poor. They export tons of valuable minerals to the U.S. but the profits are kept by an elite few who spend most of their time outside the country, and nobody inside the country has enough wealth to buy goods from the U.S. The U.S. would have a large trade deficit with that country, but would be benefiting enormously from the relationship. In this scenario, the country's people are certainly being taken advantage of, but the U.S. is absolutely not.
That's the problem with the trade deficit: it tells you almost nothing on its own. You can manufacture scenarios between countries involving a huge trade deficit, surplus, or an even balance, but where trade is fair, or where either country is taking advantage of the other. It's just not a useful number on its own.