SaltWater
LightNews LightNews
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
SaltWater
@inthedeepblue.bsky.social
39 followers 61 following 14 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by SaltWater
nicholasgrossman.bsky.social
As bond and currency markets show capital flight from the US—opposite of what usually happens in global economic turmoil—Wall St. brought these losses on themselves.

Told each other Trump didn’t mean what he kept saying and partially did last time, that’s just for the rubes.

Who’s the rube now?
Tariffs Expose Wall Street's Misplaced Faith in Trump
Bankers and business leaders imagine a more reliable, less protectionist version of the president than the one that actually exists. Now they're finding out the hard way.
www.arcdigital.media
April 9, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Reposted by SaltWater
dfrye120.bsky.social
This guy did a pretty nice write up on the guy who inspired trump, and vance. jfhatfield.substack.com/p/trumps-tar...
Trump's Tariffs and Yarvin's Takeover of the American Economy
Trump's tariffs are just the first step in Yarvin's vision for a new American economy
jfhatfield.substack.com
April 9, 2025 at 1:44 PM
Reposted by SaltWater
amyhoy.bsky.social
guess where they got their weird trade deficit math from?

i went to the pit for y'all and brought back the screenshots with alt text
chatgpt log: What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even-playing fields when it comes to trade deficit? Set minimum at 10%. Reasoned about trade tariffs and deficits for 10 seconds v A straightforward (if naïve) method is to set the tariff rate for each trading partner equal to the percentage share of the trade deficit relative to that country's total imports-always no less than 10%. In formula form: Tariff Rate (%) = max(10, (Trade Deficit ÷ Total Imports) * 100) For example, if the US runs a $20 billion deficit on $100 billion worth of imports from a country, the calculated rate is (20/100)×100 = 20%. If the deficit were only 5%, you'd still impose a 10% floor. This method ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade-such as elasticities, retaliatory measures, and supply chain nuances-but it provides a blunt, proportional rule to "level the playing field." One might implement it in Python like so: [code] Gemini answer: Okay, let's break down the idea of using tariffs to achieve an "even playing field" defined as eliminating the US trade deficit. While the goal of balancing trade is understandable, devising an "easy way" to calculate tariffs to achieve this is extremely complex, and most economists would argue it's not feasible or desirable for several reasons. However, let's outline a highly simplified conceptual approach based only on the numbers, ignoring the vast real-world complexities and consequences: Simplified (and Problematic) Calculation Idea: 1. Identify the Bilateral Deficit: Determine the trade deficit the US has with a specific country (Country X). Deficit_X = Value of Imports from X - Value of • Exports to X 2. Target Reduction: The goal is to reduce imports from Country X (or increase their cost to US buyers) by the amount of the deficit, so that the value effectively balances out. 3. Calculate Required Tariff (Ignoring Economics): • If you assume, very unrealistically, that a tariff directly reduces the value of imports by a corresponding percentage (which it doesn't - it increases the price), you could try: Required Reduction % = Deficit_X / Value of • Imports from X Claude: What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even-playing fields when it comes to trade deficit? Set minimum at 10%. To calculate tariffs that could theoretically level the playing field for trade deficits, I'd suggest a straightforward approach based on the trade imbalance percentage: 1. Calculate the bilateral trade deficit with each trading partner: Trade Deficit - US Imports from Country - US Exports to Country 2. Express this as a percentage of total bilateral trade: Deficit Percentage - (Trade Deficit / Total Bilateral Trade) × 100 3. Apply a tariff rate that corresponds to this percentage, with your minimum 10% floor: Tariff Rate = max(Deficit Percentage, 10%) This creates a proportional response where countries with larger trade surpluses with the US would face higher tariffs. For example: • If Country A has a 25% trade surplus with the US (meaning the US has a 25% deficit), apply a 25% tariff • If Country B has a 5% trade surplus with the US, apply the minimum 10% tariff This method is relatively simple to calculate and directly ties tariff levels to trade imbalances. However, I should note that economists generally caution that trade deficits alone don't necessarily indicate unfair trade practices, and tariffs can have complex economic consequences including increased consumer prices and potential retaliation. Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this approach or discuss potential refinements to make it more sophisticated? Grok: the deficit. The deficit as a percentage of total trade is $295B/$582B = 50.69%. Using the formula Tariff% = 10% + (Deficit% × Scaling Factor), we choose a scaling factor of 50 for illustration: • Tariff = 10% + (50.69% × 50) = 10% + 25.345% = 35.345%, rounded to 35.3%. This means a 35.3% tariff on Chinese goods could be proposed to offset the imbalance, aiming to reduce imports and encourage domestic production or exports. Extending to Other Countries To provide a broader view, here's a table of top US trading partners with 2024 deficits, using data from The Motley Fool and similar calculations (assuming scaling factor of 50 for consistency): [data table headings] Country Deficit (USD Billion) Total Trade (USD Billion) Deficit % Calculate d Tariff % China -295 582 50.69% 35.3% Mexico -172 840 20.48% 20.2% Vietnam -123 (Data incomplet e, estimate) ~30% 25.0% Ireland -87 (Data incomplet e, estimate) ~25% 22.5% Germany -85 (Data incomplete estimate) ~20% 20.0%
April 3, 2025 at 12:42 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
Underestimated comment
March 30, 2025 at 6:00 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
Americans alive right now are the most coddled people on earth. They’ve never had to fight for anything. Why would this fight be any different?
March 20, 2025 at 10:05 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
The Rocks Markets sometimes have stuff like this. Follow George St down to the end where it turns under the Harbour Bridge
March 16, 2025 at 1:56 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
Greg, serious qn, do you think the Dems dont want this, at least to some degree?

A ‘third arm’ to move the party might work, but unless a third party exists, how can you guys ever get your will expressed?
March 11, 2025 at 8:08 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
Germany, that famously non unionised workforce 🙄
March 7, 2025 at 3:30 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
You get their attention, and now they feel slighted and don’t trust you. Incredible.
March 7, 2025 at 12:43 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
Whats the absolute best case then? That this downsizing actually makes the US more effective and they decide it’s in their interest to maintain their geopolitical role?
February 26, 2025 at 11:51 PM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
The ferry is an awesome way to see the harbour. Jump on a few at circular quay, especially do the Manly one and the Parramatta one.
February 26, 2025 at 6:36 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
‘Elected’ is doing a lot of work here
February 23, 2025 at 6:02 AM
inthedeepblue.bsky.social
Abandoning the soft power that made your entire world is one way of ruling.
two men are sitting at a table in front of a crowd and one of them is saying that 's a bold strategy cotton
ALT: two men are sitting at a table in front of a crowd and one of them is saying that 's a bold strategy cotton
media.tenor.com
February 22, 2025 at 10:30 AM