You all are clearly veiled and attached to political party that dislikes Trump. There is no way WSJ with intelligent economists is this backwards on how tariffs work.. he schooled you all and your last week of posts yesterday, you are going to have more intelligent people calling you out and you will lose customers... do not be this naive WSJ editor manager... i can school you all day, kiddo.
there should be a president with some kinda microchips and semiconductor act that prioritizes american infrastructure, maybe one opposed to giving our moneh to billionaires and more to the working class bolstering needed industry... ooh wait this other guy has golden sneakerz, forget what i said
I feel extra bad for workers in your industry. I much prefer software over hardware but one of our required CS courses was hardware architecture and the deep dive into how the manufacturing of semiconductors, chips, and more are pretty much one of the most expensive processes in the world and how global trade is a requirement for it was baffling.
Good luck, my friend. We've ASML in the Netherlands and Trump is trying to tariff us 25%. It's not only intertwined. We've control over all your chiptechnology. 7nm is the best the US can do at Intel right now. Nvidia 1000 series. You could be working in Europe soon. Or we give it to China. Either way. Terrible for the US economy.
@ YT shadows comment for no reason. Don't try to make sense of it or try to act like it's a conspiracy. I've had the simplest of my comments deleted, while others more controversial ones were completely fine. One time all I said is "okay" and it disappeared immediately.
No, actually you have it backwards. Tarrifs were pointless in the 19th century because we did not have a trade deficit. Leverage goes to the buyer not to the seller. Tarrifs today give us leverage over all the foreign countries who are foolish enough to make themselves dependent on American consumers.
Exactly, modern production is only efficient because sourcing materials from wherever we can means there is no worry about running out of supply. Tariffs hurt the supply process and make manufacturing more difficult overall.
It's before the US was a empire. Japan, Germany and Italy had a higher GDP. The US is acting like them. But this isn't the biggest problem for the US. Last time i checked my country the Netherlands applies Moore's law to chips at ASML for the entire US and Taiwanese tech industry. We pull that or start selling to China again there won't be much left of the US economy in 4 years. The modern economy part of the video. This is why the EU isn't worried at all. There's no widespread panic at all here. We can target every single tech bro. Nvidia, we pull ASML from them. Google, we pull ASML from them, Space X, we pull ASML from them. Try to move EUV machines to Space X, we pull all of ASML.
At this point hes just manipulating the stock market. He never planned to implement tariffs today. He wanted to announce it and then postpone them just before they appear. Watch him either implement the tariffs in a month and cancel them after or postpone them again.
I think he does it just to manipulate and fire up his base of MAGA its cultists who are dim enough to believe anything. Trump accomplished absolutely nothing with his Tariffs-For-A-Day trick. Canada and Mexico were already doing everything he was asking for in 2023. That's why they were so happy to oblige. But Trump will still use it to claim victory, which the dimmest members of society eat up like Chinese MAGA Bibles and gawdy gold $400 sneakers. But Trump will be around as long as it takes stupid to run it's course - which could actually be awhile.
The $64 dollar question here is ....American industry today. Is the worker of today capable of the success in this economy as in was in McKinley's time ? Bring industry back ? Great ...but who is going to work ? We aren't making products from tin plate anymore. Would expect that $64 was worth a lot more then too.
You got people fighting over packing goods in Amazon warehouses. You've got the work force. The question is, are Americans going to tolerate an increase in prices on already inflated goods while the manufacturers rebuild. Another question is are manufacturers going to move. Everything could change in 4 years and with hundreds of billion of dollars in investment overseas I don't see them jumping ship unless the costs become astronomical
@insiderdtleftright5585 The increase in price is permanent though. Domestic manufacturers aren't going to make cheaper goods for consumers they'll likely price there goods similar to imported goods.
One point everyone misses is, sure domestic manufacturing increases prices in his trade senario. But, that money doesn't necessarily go to profit for the manufacturing company. The money might be spent on expanding the company and hiring employees.😮
@@markkory8059indeed , but without foreign trade the market for that increase in manufacturing is only as large as what can be domestically consumed. Which is why most expanding companies try to export their products at some point. Also good for not have all one’s eggs in one basket eh?
That is false, most countries when they FIRST industrialize use protectionism policies, but we are a developed economy, so yes it will negatively affect us.
@@nicolascarrizales6220 And the US had a population of 23 million in 1850. Most were farmers. It was easy to close off your economy. Not so today. What's the point of a centuries old system that's irrelevant today's environment!
All the ‘smart money men’ on Wall Street are shocked at the stupidity of Trump’s tariffs. He said he’d do it - he wants to do it , he’s a moron and they said and did nothing.
Trump likes to say that tariffs won't raise prices, but the whole purpose of tariffs is to raise prices, so people won't buy cheap foreign goods, but more expensive American goods that are only cheaper than the foreign goods because of the tariffs. He says that foreign companies will lower their prices, so tariffs won't actually make foreign goods more expensive, which means that the tariffs won't help American companies make more money by being cheaper than the foreign goods. He is actually saying that he is doing it for the tax revenue and not to help American companies increase their sales. On the other hand, tariffs other countries put on American products will mean lost sales for American companies or they will have to lower their prices too to counter-act the tariffs. Either way, they lose money.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pzit’s good indeed , but I’ll point you towards the speech by Jeff Daniels on “The Newsroom” re America is the greatest. Some facts for you.
Please be aware, that the revenue from tariffs is not coming from abroad, it is from the American people! It is in fact a penalty Americans pay to Trump for trying to use goods that were cheaper.
The point is to manufacture locally so people will have jobs, and so their earnings will boost consumption and pay for the increase of cost. Increase of cost means increase revenues for the government.
@@Asim_Khan00 Self reliance is impossible today. Way too many people. No country has the ability to be closed off, unless your will to sacrifice your way of life! See North Korea.
@@Janet1001-Xthis is an intrinsically ignorant and simplistic belief, unless you want to back to an economy like the 1880’s - but truth and facts mean nothing to maga- you know it’s lies YOU LIKE THOSE LIES.
@@mustywalrus7791 - do not underestimate the stupidity of maga - Trump acted like a bullying liar to get himself elected - now he intends to act like fascist bully.
@@jasonbaker541there are valid reasons to add tariffs , but the blanket tariffs against Mexico and Canada ….. every economist and knowledgeable trade expert that I have heard , yup you guessed it , thinks it’s counterproductive. But I could be wrong , tell us about those that think it’s a good thing
Ah yes, the ivy league economists making $180,000 a year waxing poetic about how the 3 men worth a combined $300,000,000,000 are getting it wrong. The extra 9 zeros were gained from poor decision making and "yes men" giving them bad advice, surely. 😄
Wasn’t that long ago. The globe laughs at Americas limited perspective. You need to have been playing video games and going on tik tok in order for something to be relevant and all books older than 1999 are old and ineffective.. Please go back to school. American stereotype
Note they didn't do anything in this piece to show the link that can come from tariff and income inequality - by he late 19th C tariffs led america into the Gilded age - super rich oligarchs who BOUGHT American civil society - they owned the banks, the media, the politicians, and levers of regulation - and was one of the greatest periods of income inequality in the US (and the world). America started to wean themselves off Tarriffs as they had saturated their on markets - when America reached for Tariffs again in 1930 with the economic downturn, it crashed the economy and led to the great depression.
Ok, WSJ, some of us(including you) may hate Trump's Tariffs... but the reality is Mckinley never abandoned tariffs, he just adopted reciprocity agreements in his second term - which is what Trump is doing. Mckinley allowed for reduced tariffs on certain goods in exchange for trade concessions from other countries. However, this was not an abandonment of tariffs but an adjustment to improve trade relations while maintaining protectionism. He sadly got assassinated in 1901. Let's not twist history.
Word it however you want, but the fact remains that he had to abandon a few of the functionary aspects of his tariffs, meaning he back-tracked and I am pretty sure that guy didn't sell 'Made in China' Bibles. Global supply is so globalised now that it is impossible for this to be a long term solution. Prices are going to skyrocket soon.........
@@jayc5373 Yeah, i don't get why people don't understand that part. Both the billionaire and the poor person will need to pay 25% on grocery, ect... and they both get a cut of i don't know 4% on income tax.... Who's making money from this move?
yeah, his goal is to completely nerf income tax, cause there's no reason for us to be paying so much in taxes to the government when it could be funded by tariffs. Couple this with a significantly smaller government where we're not wasting so much money on useless stuff, and the combination will give us an incredibly wealthy nation as a result now, if we can just get rid of the stupid tax amendment and the "US Federal Reserve Bank" (which is none of those btw, lol), then we can just utilize the treasury for it's intended purpose.
@ - lol, if you think the US government could be funded by tariffs then you should probably sit this discussion out. Stick to watching Joe Rogan. He is more your speed.
Tariffs can help some domestic industries, that is true, but they hurt other industries and the consumer at least as much. They are perfect for protecting inefficient companies and unions.
@ Whats the problem with dumping? Getting overly cheap food may hurt domestic farmers, but it means lower consumer prices. If a foreign economy is effectively willing to spend tax revenue for foreign countries why not profit from a stupid decision?
A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, reading about climbing Mt Everest isn’t the same as climbing it. Reading about McKinley doesn’t mean you can implement his policies……that little knowledge thing in real time 🍊🤡
While I liked the insight and history of McKinley's presidency and tariff policy, this video omits that the America that President Trump resides over is not even remotely the same type of economy as it was back then. And the video skips the nuances of the differences between how his policies would actually impact the three R's (Revenue, Restriction/Protectionism, and Reciprocity) versus how McKinley used them in the 19th century. Also the government revenue chart is misleading, because both Income Tax and Tariffs primarily are paid by Americans, not foreigners. And it just affects Americans at different rates. Income Tax is more progressive (affecting wealthier people more (allegedly), whereas Tariffs are more regressive (affecting poorer people more).
I can bet you a million yes million that some or the other intern went on chatgpt and searched. "Tell me which US president was the best advocate of Tariffs and his name" and chatgpt replied with Mckenly and they went on with it. Thats the only thing he knows about him. His name. Thats it.
This explains why his day 1 executive order was to rename Denali to Mount McKinley... I just assumed it was to erase the native name. Turned out it was based more on idiotic idolatry.
I thought this when it happened. Renaming was a signal. Not just for the tariff bit, but McKinley was also an expansionist. What's Trump trying to do? Tariff allies and annex countries.
"erase the native name" its name was mount mckinley for a long time. the native name wasn't "erased" even when the official name was Mount Mckinley. I don't get why you're making this into an erasure of native americans, when Trump has had a very pro-native presidency so far (w/ the lumbee tribe)
@@peacewind-aero Tariff countries with huge trade deficits..... Annex places that are crucial for national security, places which are NOT countries, like Greenland, Panama Canal, and Canada which is not a viable country without American defense and economic subsidy.
Global manufacturing wasn't as specialized or technical as it is today. Moving a wool mill or tin smelting is very different than moving auto or computer chip or even labor-intensive tasks like clothing that favor low wage countries. You improve domestic manufacturing through investment, building modern automated factors that require little or no labor inputs and thus can compete with the global price against the developing nations. Tariffs doesn't create this investment, tax breaks or even stimulus does.
"Tariffs doesn't create this investment, tax breaks or even stimulus does." Should we tolerate the EU continuing to put a 10% tariff on American cars? If other countries want free trade with us, they should stop putting tariffs on our exports.
@@dafunkmonster How'd that work work out for America's closest alias? Threatened by the guy wok signed the USMCA and said it was the greatest deal ever. Now complaining about the idiot who negotiated it. Who was that? Hmmm.🤣🤣🤣🤣
You mean like the auto manufacturing plant (largest in the world) that China was building in Mexico so they could send cars tariff free into America? When Trump introduced the prospect of these tariffs, China halted construction. We wouldn't have an auto manufacturing industry if Trump hadn't done that.
@@joroll26 The previous administration passed an "Inflation Expansion Act" and called it the "Inflation Reduction Act". Those kind of shenanigans do not help our country. And people like you extolled their idiocy as greatness.
This our opportunity to reintroduce slave labor as an economic tool! Rather than buying all of our goods from countries that rely on slave labor, we should just let a bunch of people in the country that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar!
The tariffs also only worked during a time period where we were mostly farmers. We were exporting much more than we were importing. That’s not our current system now (it’s the complete opposite), so if he were to impose a bunch of tariffs on the imports it would dramatically hurt us. Why doesn’t he focus on bringing back jobs and focus on that first? He’s trying to jump the gun and he’s missing a crucial step!
They just worked. It worked this past weekend. Not to mention the other tarriffs that are still in place from his first term... The mental gymnsatics it takes for Democrats to cope is genuinely stunning
“Our country had more money than it knew what to do with”… Then you added almost 9 Trillion to our deficit!! A record he set that he doesn’t seem to want to brag about. 😡
This a not the 1890's . Economies are completely different, intertwined and dependant on each other, which has built wealth for many nations. Why Trump thinks they work now is beyond the rational of economists and even the WSJ.
and he wants US to produce like in the late 1800s and early 1900s? with such a high cost of working wage? the factories are not gonna go up and stay competitive.
McKinley tariff solved the problem of government having too much money. Today’s government has huge debts. McKinley tariff works when there was no income tax.
In fact Roosevelt continued on with Mckinley's Tariffs and was a big supporter of Tariffs and he ended up on Mount Rushmore. A tariff is a tax and a tax is a tariff and the both start with TA and are one in the same in raising money for governments. People say tariffs or should I say taxes used to only work 200 years ago, but not now, so in essence then taxes which are tariffs worked then, but not now, but this is BS.. It's rich that Democrats are complaining about Tariffs now, since they support high taxes, or should I say high tariffs on business which then passes the cost down to the consumers who they claim to care so much about, but this BS too.
There was no leverage in tarrifs in the 19 century because we did not have a trade deficit. Leverage goes to the buyer, not the seller. Comparing Trump tarrifs to McKinley tarrifs makes no sense.
The Wall Street Journal’s dismissal of Trump’s tariffs as “the dumbest trade war” ignores their strategic leverage in reshaping North American trade and security. Far from reckless protectionism, the policy has already pressured Mexico to deploy troops against fentanyl trafficking and incentivized trade shifts that align with U.S. interests. These tariffs are not just economic penalties but a calculated effort to force concessions on critical issues like immigration, drug enforcement, and manufacturing imbalances. Beyond diplomacy, tariffs serve a broader goal-reducing U.S. reliance on foreign supply chains and reviving domestic industries. With 42% of auto parts sourced from Mexico, targeted tariffs encourage reshoring, strengthening states like Michigan and Ohio. Selective rates, such as a 10% tariff on Canadian energy versus 25% on other goods, further reveal a nuanced strategy protecting key sectors without fully severing trade ties. This push for economic sovereignty is a response to vulnerabilities exposed by global crises, ensuring long-term resilience over short-term economic discomfort. Critics who champion free trade often ignore its failures, from stagnant wages to the U.S.’s $180 billion trade deficit with Canada and Mexico. Just as Trump’s 2018 steel tariffs led to USMCA negotiations that strengthened labor protections, these tariffs could force necessary reforms. Markets, too, have proven adaptable, with initial stock market dips stabilizing as businesses adjust. Labeling this strategy as simply “dumb” oversimplifies a complex, high-stakes negotiation. The real question isn’t whether tariffs cause disruption-they always do-but whether that disruption secures lasting economic and security advantages. If it does, then the short-term pain is a price worth paying.
This is a great summation of everyone’s thoughts on tariffs. Sounds great in practice and then eventually you realize it’s not worth it and kind of dumb. 😂 I posted something on this exact thing and the rest of trump’s economic policies.
Funny because last video you were talking about how it would bankrupt America and now they have all bent the knee, I don’t think you are as smart as you think you are. Must be BLM’s best and brightest huh?
If the Chinese are going to be paying for the tariffs, then stuff from Temu instead of being 80% off would have to be 90% off. Otherwise, Americans would have to buy the stuff for only 70% off.
Tariffs are a tactical approach, not an overarching strategy. That is why during his first Presidency from 2018 through 2020 the trade war with China was a fiesta-del-failure for the United States which hurt the Supply Chain. The damage was only worsened by the Pandemic in 2020 which aggravated the availability of certain goods and catalyzed the increase in prices. I can understand the goals of the tariffs, but, without a strategic backbone, this can only be another foreign policy failure that will hurt common folk in the long run. And like explained in this video, you cannot achieve ALL goals concurrently.
It's ironic that the 1 policy Trump has been the most consistent on even decades before he became a politician is believing that tariffs are always good for U.S. businesses. Then again, he failed/bankrupted multiple businesses before becoming a politician, so it's not too surprising he stands by enacting tariffs regardless of what economists say. Tariffs can work effectively if used sparingly/selectively, but when you put broad tariffs on all goods from a specific or even multiple countries it makes foreign made goods more expensive, as well as U.S. made goods that include foreign produced parts.
Watching this makes more sense now... However, I do not believe that tariffs on imports will generate sufficient revenue in the present. Can anybody tell if it will?
Surplus? Don't know what to do with it? How bout giving the money back to it's citizens. And if the country is getting richer than the citizens should too. Non different than those Arab countries that are crazy rich. All their citizens are taken care of. Wild.
A surplus of money sitting around is useless. You can't go spend that large surplus all over the place because it causes devaluation of the currency if you overspend.
Was nice right before Reagan. They forgot one thing to mention. 71% income tax during that surplus in the US on the highest bracket. WSJ is still owned by Rupert Murdoch.
I rather have a surplus. With the surplus the government 😊could use that surplus money to help the rest of the world as long as United states people are doing great. I do not see what the down size of being a surplus.
At this point, he’s just creating so much volatility in the markets to make a profit either from shorting or going long, pays to be close to trump at this point
How can a revenue SURPLUS be such a problem? I don't get it. This video describes it as if it's such an undesirable 'problem'. If the govt has a SURPLUS of money, isn't it a BOON? It means that the government can invest in other things, like infrastructure, or improving social services, or cutting taxes. How on earth can the WSJ describe this as a 'problem'?
Because the assumption is that a government already does this with existing revenue. (Though not in the US) Excess is wasted. Just extra tax on citizens.
Well @ 30 trillion in debt id say we don't have to worry about a surplus any time soon. So maybe surplus era methods like excise and predominant income tax revenue is no longer feasible in our modern time
Trump pauses tariffs on Mexico, Canada for a month, but his threats spooked almost everyone: on.wsj.com/40NbqLQ
You all are clearly veiled and attached to political party that dislikes Trump. There is no way WSJ with intelligent economists is this backwards on how tariffs work.. he schooled you all and your last week of posts yesterday, you are going to have more intelligent people calling you out and you will lose customers... do not be this naive WSJ editor manager... i can school you all day, kiddo.
@@dertythegrower did you go to trump u ---- $27 million for fraud ?
great spelling LOL
Everybody dislikes trump, except right wing red hats!
@@JaminWhite That's all you can say. Go read a book .
Did McKiinley .... sell made in china bibles ?
Like a convicted felon would do?
Beautiful bibles, the best bibles?
@@Rimrock300 everyone is saying this -- believe me !
...and ties.
And MAGA hats.
I’m a US semiconductor worker. Our company is so globally intertwined it’s insane. It’s been that way for long long long time.
there should be a president with some kinda microchips and semiconductor act that prioritizes american infrastructure, maybe one opposed to giving our moneh to billionaires and more to the working class bolstering needed industry... ooh wait this other guy has golden sneakerz, forget what i said
I feel extra bad for workers in your industry. I much prefer software over hardware but one of our required CS courses was hardware architecture and the deep dive into how the manufacturing of semiconductors, chips, and more are pretty much one of the most expensive processes in the world and how global trade is a requirement for it was baffling.
Tesla is vertically integrated for a reason.
@@alexv6068dont say that too loud!! Youll be called a communist in the us
Good luck, my friend. We've ASML in the Netherlands and Trump is trying to tariff us 25%. It's not only intertwined. We've control over all your chiptechnology. 7nm is the best the US can do at Intel right now. Nvidia 1000 series. You could be working in Europe soon. Or we give it to China. Either way. Terrible for the US economy.
I always wondered which era MAGA meant….
Message!
If you describe what life was like during that era, YT will shadow the comment. I tried.
@ YT shadows comment for no reason. Don't try to make sense of it or try to act like it's a conspiracy.
I've had the simplest of my comments deleted, while others more controversial ones were completely fine. One time all I said is "okay" and it disappeared immediately.
Tariffs worked 200 yrs ago when USAs economy was way smaller... High Tariffs doesn't work now
So why are Canada and Mexico cooperating with orange man’s demands?
No, actually you have it backwards. Tarrifs were pointless in the 19th century because we did not have a trade deficit.
Leverage goes to the buyer not to the seller.
Tarrifs today give us leverage over all the foreign countries who are foolish enough to make themselves dependent on American consumers.
Exactly, modern production is only efficient because sourcing materials from wherever we can means there is no worry about running out of supply. Tariffs hurt the supply process and make manufacturing more difficult overall.
It's before the US was a empire. Japan, Germany and Italy had a higher GDP. The US is acting like them.
But this isn't the biggest problem for the US. Last time i checked my country the Netherlands applies Moore's law to chips at ASML for the entire US and Taiwanese tech industry. We pull that or start selling to China again there won't be much left of the US economy in 4 years. The modern economy part of the video. This is why the EU isn't worried at all. There's no widespread panic at all here. We can target every single tech bro. Nvidia, we pull ASML from them. Google, we pull ASML from them, Space X, we pull ASML from them. Try to move EUV machines to Space X, we pull all of ASML.
@@Joey-ct8bm Biden's chip act should be kicking in by 4 yrs time... wouldn't domestic chip production save them?
At this point hes just manipulating the stock market. He never planned to implement tariffs today. He wanted to announce it and then postpone them just before they appear. Watch him either implement the tariffs in a month and cancel them after or postpone them again.
Ccpbot script.
Okayyy we'll see about that when one country decides they want the tariffs
I think he does it just to manipulate and fire up his base of MAGA its cultists who are dim enough to believe anything. Trump accomplished absolutely nothing with his Tariffs-For-A-Day trick. Canada and Mexico were already doing everything he was asking for in 2023. That's why they were so happy to oblige. But Trump will still use it to claim victory, which the dimmest members of society eat up like Chinese MAGA Bibles and gawdy gold $400 sneakers. But Trump will be around as long as it takes stupid to run it's course - which could actually be awhile.
Did you miss the part where both Canada and Mexico basically surrendered within hours of the tariffs going into effect?
@@dafunkmonster Trump winning by imposing what was already in motion XD orange bro is cooked
The $64 dollar question here is ....American industry today. Is the worker of today capable of the success in this economy as in was in McKinley's time ? Bring industry back ? Great ...but who is going to work ? We aren't making products from tin plate anymore. Would expect that $64 was worth a lot more then too.
You got people fighting over packing goods in Amazon warehouses. You've got the work force. The question is, are Americans going to tolerate an increase in prices on already inflated goods while the manufacturers rebuild.
Another question is are manufacturers going to move. Everything could change in 4 years and with hundreds of billion of dollars in investment overseas I don't see them jumping ship unless the costs become astronomical
@insiderdtleftright5585 The increase in price is permanent though. Domestic manufacturers aren't going to make cheaper goods for consumers they'll likely price there goods similar to imported goods.
One point everyone misses is, sure domestic manufacturing increases prices in his trade senario. But, that money doesn't necessarily go to profit for the manufacturing company. The money might be spent on expanding the company and hiring employees.😮
@@markkory8059indeed , but without foreign trade the market for that increase in manufacturing is only as large as what can be domestically consumed. Which is why most expanding companies try to export their products at some point. Also good for not have all one’s eggs in one basket eh?
$ 10,000 iphone?
He sure is a fool
This is why Musk needs to purge the so-called experts out of the federal govt. We can't have people like historians bringing up facts.
Don’t say that - maga will read the first line and say that’s true!
LOL.
Very well explained . Good job giving the pros and cons of all options
If Trump doesn't read; who is telling him about President McKinley?
Saw it on the tv ? At a guess
There is this guy, snake eyed, bold at youg age with smirks smile,,, you know who I mean,,,
Protectionism needs an industry to protect. Without an industry to protect, Trump's tariffs just interrupted the supply chain for no purpose.
Is this the WatchMojo lady?
Finally someone asking the real question here, I gotta know too!!
AI dude
@ it's scary and sad that you could be 100% correct on that!!
No it’s not
@RK-be8pn she's been making these videos before AI. Not everything is AI kid
No country has achieved significant economic development through protectionism policies.
That is false, most countries when they FIRST industrialize use protectionism policies, but we are a developed economy, so yes it will negatively affect us.
@@nicolascarrizales6220 And the US had a population of 23 million in 1850. Most were farmers. It was easy to close off your economy. Not so today. What's the point of a centuries old system that's irrelevant today's environment!
No, but Trump seems to be very fascinated of North Korea 😎
All the ‘smart money men’ on Wall Street are shocked at the stupidity of Trump’s tariffs. He said he’d do it - he wants to do it , he’s a moron and they said and did nothing.
Trump likes to say that tariffs won't raise prices, but the whole purpose of tariffs is to raise prices, so people won't buy cheap foreign goods, but more expensive American goods that are only cheaper than the foreign goods because of the tariffs. He says that foreign companies will lower their prices, so tariffs won't actually make foreign goods more expensive, which means that the tariffs won't help American companies make more money by being cheaper than the foreign goods. He is actually saying that he is doing it for the tax revenue and not to help American companies increase their sales.
On the other hand, tariffs other countries put on American products will mean lost sales for American companies or they will have to lower their prices too to counter-act the tariffs. Either way, they lose money.
Vast wealth for the rich not the common man
Can somebody call the white house and let them know its 2025 and not 1896. Please & thx
They still haven't fixed the Y2K bug yet. 😂😂
We have a Constitution over 2 centuries old and it is still the best in the world.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pz We also had to fix the constitution a bunch of times to AMEND portions of it for being stupid or outdated.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pzit’s good indeed , but I’ll point you towards the speech by Jeff Daniels on “The Newsroom” re America is the greatest. Some facts for you.
No phones in 1896 but if someone could send this please:
.. -- .--. . .- -.-. ....
Please be aware, that the revenue from tariffs is not coming from abroad, it is from the American people! It is in fact a penalty Americans pay to Trump for trying to use goods that were cheaper.
The point is to manufacture locally so people will have jobs, and so their earnings will boost consumption and pay for the increase of cost. Increase of cost means increase revenues for the government.
not to mention - self reliance. it's something that is priceless in case you are at war.
@@Asim_Khan00 Self reliance is impossible today. Way too many people. No country has the ability to be closed off, unless your will to sacrifice your way of life! See North Korea.
@@Janet1001-Xthis is an intrinsically ignorant and simplistic belief, unless you want to back to an economy like the 1880’s - but truth and facts mean nothing to maga- you know it’s lies YOU LIKE THOSE LIES.
@@mustywalrus7791 - do not underestimate the stupidity of maga - Trump acted like a bullying liar to get himself elected - now he intends to act like fascist bully.
I trust economists over Trump. If economists are saying tariffs are bad at the end, I will take it.
Are you saying there are no economists that are saying tariffs are good?
@@jasonbaker541 Not smart ones!
@@jasonbaker541 none that are Americans.
@@jasonbaker541there are valid reasons to add tariffs , but the blanket tariffs against Mexico and Canada ….. every economist and knowledgeable trade expert that I have heard , yup you guessed it , thinks it’s counterproductive. But I could be wrong , tell us about those that think it’s a good thing
Ah yes, the ivy league economists making $180,000 a year waxing poetic about how the 3 men worth a combined $300,000,000,000 are getting it wrong. The extra 9 zeros were gained from poor decision making and "yes men" giving them bad advice, surely. 😄
😅 21st century president is trying to copy the idea of a 19th century leader! I see.
He's only a couple of centuries behind on a good day!
Our declaration of independence was drawn up over 2 centuries ago.
@@robertjohnson-mt8pzAnd? I mean the Magna Carta is over eight centuries old.
Wasn’t that long ago. The globe laughs at Americas limited perspective. You need to have been playing video games and going on tik tok in order for something to be relevant and all books older than 1999 are old and ineffective.. Please go back to school. American stereotype
Fascinating segment! Difficult to conceive of a universe where a surplus was a problem. Might have to pick up that guy's book. Good work WSJ!
Note they didn't do anything in this piece to show the link that can come from tariff and income inequality - by he late 19th C tariffs led america into the Gilded age - super rich oligarchs who BOUGHT American civil society - they owned the banks, the media, the politicians, and levers of regulation - and was one of the greatest periods of income inequality in the US (and the world). America started to wean themselves off Tarriffs as they had saturated their on markets - when America reached for Tariffs again in 1930 with the economic downturn, it crashed the economy and led to the great depression.
Thanks....I knew there was something missing there.
Ok, WSJ, some of us(including you) may hate Trump's Tariffs... but the reality is Mckinley never abandoned tariffs, he just adopted reciprocity agreements in his second term - which is what Trump is doing. Mckinley allowed for reduced tariffs on certain goods in exchange for trade concessions from other countries. However, this was not an abandonment of tariffs but an adjustment to improve trade relations while maintaining protectionism. He sadly got assassinated in 1901. Let's not twist history.
Word it however you want, but the fact remains that he had to abandon a few of the functionary aspects of his tariffs, meaning he back-tracked and I am pretty sure that guy didn't sell 'Made in China' Bibles. Global supply is so globalised now that it is impossible for this to be a long term solution. Prices are going to skyrocket soon.........
100%
This is how smart they think their readers are. I had a fifty two dollar a year digital subscription and quit because the value just wasn't there.
If you're going to re-introduce tatiffs, lower the income tax.
That’s his plan, tax the middle class and poor through tariffs and give his billionaire cabinet tax breaks.
@@jayc5373 Yeah, i don't get why people don't understand that part. Both the billionaire and the poor person will need to pay 25% on grocery, ect... and they both get a cut of i don't know 4% on income tax.... Who's making money from this move?
He already said that. Try to keep up.
yeah, his goal is to completely nerf income tax, cause there's no reason for us to be paying so much in taxes to the government when it could be funded by tariffs. Couple this with a significantly smaller government where we're not wasting so much money on useless stuff, and the combination will give us an incredibly wealthy nation as a result
now, if we can just get rid of the stupid tax amendment and the "US Federal Reserve Bank" (which is none of those btw, lol), then we can just utilize the treasury for it's intended purpose.
@ - lol, if you think the US government could be funded by tariffs then you should probably sit this discussion out. Stick to watching Joe Rogan. He is more your speed.
3:17 ain't none a yas talkin about McKinley's pose in that photo, it's like "hey there..."😂
Tariffs can help some domestic industries, that is true, but they hurt other industries and the consumer at least as much. They are perfect for protecting inefficient companies and unions.
They are perfect to prevent "dumping".
@ Whats the problem with dumping? Getting overly cheap food may hurt domestic farmers, but it means lower consumer prices. If a foreign economy is effectively willing to spend tax revenue for foreign countries why not profit from a stupid decision?
Wow! Trump says William McKinley as often as he said Hanable Lector
Like Biden telling the story of how his uncle was eaten by cannibals?
Good video.
Who are the lawyers advising Trump on legal matters?
Dewey, Cheatem and Howe
A bunch of yes men
Larry, Curly and Moe.
A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, reading about climbing Mt Everest isn’t the same as climbing it. Reading about McKinley doesn’t mean you can implement his policies……that little knowledge thing in real time 🍊🤡
Indeed. But remember that DJT is not a reader. He watches tv a lot
What about the tariffs during the 1930's...?
While I liked the insight and history of McKinley's presidency and tariff policy, this video omits that the America that President Trump resides over is not even remotely the same type of economy as it was back then. And the video skips the nuances of the differences between how his policies would actually impact the three R's (Revenue, Restriction/Protectionism, and Reciprocity) versus how McKinley used them in the 19th century. Also the government revenue chart is misleading, because both Income Tax and Tariffs primarily are paid by Americans, not foreigners. And it just affects Americans at different rates. Income Tax is more progressive (affecting wealthier people more (allegedly), whereas Tariffs are more regressive (affecting poorer people more).
I can bet you a million yes million that some or the other intern went on chatgpt and searched. "Tell me which US president was the best advocate of Tariffs and his name" and chatgpt replied with Mckenly and they went on with it. Thats the only thing he knows about him. His name. Thats it.
this guy is a laughting stock for the whole world and the smart americans. You get what you vote.
.....says the guy with a stoner rapper w/ a duck on his head as an avatar
If this was true, they wouldn’t need bots like you to cry.
@censortubes from the bottom of my heart I don't give a F, cope and sethe even more winning to come
@@Daniel_D-bo aww he’s 12 at best. No wonder you have no idea what happens outside mummy’s house.
no idea what u mean. what are a brit or something?
Interesting twist, McKinley abandoned his own policy! 🤔
Trump is the Dunning-Kruger Effect personified
From now on it's "Donny-Kruger syndrome" 😂
This explains why his day 1 executive order was to rename Denali to Mount McKinley... I just assumed it was to erase the native name. Turned out it was based more on idiotic idolatry.
I thought this when it happened. Renaming was a signal. Not just for the tariff bit, but McKinley was also an expansionist. What's Trump trying to do? Tariff allies and annex countries.
"erase the native name" its name was mount mckinley for a long time. the native name wasn't "erased" even when the official name was Mount Mckinley. I don't get why you're making this into an erasure of native americans, when Trump has had a very pro-native presidency so far (w/ the lumbee tribe)
@@peacewind-aero Tariff countries with huge trade deficits..... Annex places that are crucial for national security, places which are NOT countries, like Greenland, Panama Canal, and Canada which is not a viable country without American defense and economic subsidy.
@puncifikator3870 It was called Denali long before it was called McKinley.
@puncifikator3870 As a second note, McKinley didn't ever even step foot in Alaska.
Global manufacturing wasn't as specialized or technical as it is today. Moving a wool mill or tin smelting is very different than moving auto or computer chip or even labor-intensive tasks like clothing that favor low wage countries. You improve domestic manufacturing through investment, building modern automated factors that require little or no labor inputs and thus can compete with the global price against the developing nations. Tariffs doesn't create this investment, tax breaks or even stimulus does.
The previous administration was doing that. Heard of the Chip Act? Or the Inflation Reduction Act?
"Tariffs doesn't create this investment, tax breaks or even stimulus does."
Should we tolerate the EU continuing to put a 10% tariff on American cars?
If other countries want free trade with us, they should stop putting tariffs on our exports.
@@dafunkmonster How'd that work work out for America's closest alias? Threatened by the guy wok signed the USMCA and said it was the greatest deal ever. Now complaining about the idiot who negotiated it. Who was that? Hmmm.🤣🤣🤣🤣
You mean like the auto manufacturing plant (largest in the world) that China was building in Mexico so they could send cars tariff free into America? When Trump introduced the prospect of these tariffs, China halted construction. We wouldn't have an auto manufacturing industry if Trump hadn't done that.
@@joroll26 The previous administration passed an "Inflation Expansion Act" and called it the "Inflation Reduction Act". Those kind of shenanigans do not help our country. And people like you extolled their idiocy as greatness.
Just wanted to say I was expecting a bias report. Amazing end up knowledge-based fair reporting. I'll continue to watch thanks for the cool content
We all know what ended up happening to William McKinley.
Very good video
When the Wall Street calls out Trump's tariffs as "The dumbest trade war in history" I would listen to them rather than Trump's lies.
This just proves why you lost and will keep going on it.
Trumps tariffs have successfully caused 4 of 5 nations to cave to Trumps demands. Is the Left truly this dense?
@@Censortubes No, Trump won because he lied about who really pays the tariffs. And the poorly educated believed him.
Weaponizing your currency and trade policies will distance countries from you
This is quite simple, forget the USA
Forget you
@@American_Fisherman5 Right back at yeah slick.
@@mustywalrus7791 What’s your name?
Tariffs = terrible tulips
This our opportunity to reintroduce slave labor as an economic tool! Rather than buying all of our goods from countries that rely on slave labor, we should just let a bunch of people in the country that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar!
I love paying import tariffs and passing them on to the average consumer! (No we can't make stuff here overnight.)
The tariffs also only worked during a time period where we were mostly farmers. We were exporting much more than we were importing. That’s not our current system now (it’s the complete opposite), so if he were to impose a bunch of tariffs on the imports it would dramatically hurt us.
Why doesn’t he focus on bringing back jobs and focus on that first? He’s trying to jump the gun and he’s missing a crucial step!
He IS dumb.
They just worked. It worked this past weekend. Not to mention the other tarriffs that are still in place from his first term...
The mental gymnsatics it takes for Democrats to cope is genuinely stunning
“Our country had more money than it knew what to do with”… Then you added almost 9 Trillion to our deficit!! A record he set that he doesn’t seem to want to brag about. 😡
I love the idea that the US government was in trouble from not being in enough debt
This a not the 1890's . Economies are completely different, intertwined and dependant on each other, which has built wealth for many nations. Why Trump thinks they work now is beyond the rational of economists and even the WSJ.
This WILL HURT the American people / our economy
So basically it’s a giant tax. Not as complex as I thought going into this video
lolz, I love that Americans think there will be midterm elections.
and he wants US to produce like in the late 1800s and early 1900s? with such a high cost of working wage? the factories are not gonna go up and stay competitive.
tariffs will crush wall street before it crushes anybody else, good luck with that, big orange dude!
McKinley tariff solved the problem of government having too much money. Today’s government has huge debts. McKinley tariff works when there was no income tax.
In fact Roosevelt continued on with Mckinley's Tariffs and was a big supporter of Tariffs and he ended up on Mount Rushmore. A tariff is a tax and a tax is a tariff and the both start with TA and are one in the same in raising money for governments. People say tariffs or should I say taxes used to only work 200 years ago, but not now, so in essence then taxes which are tariffs worked then, but not now, but this is BS.. It's rich that Democrats are complaining about Tariffs now, since they support high taxes, or should I say high tariffs on business which then passes the cost down to the consumers who they claim to care so much about, but this BS too.
Tariffs because the only other way is to compete in a global market.... with Trump at the helm what could go wrong ???
The law of self preservation is not the highest but the lowest law of nature
I'm curious how much has DT read about and talked with economists about tarrifs 🤔.... their pros and cons.
There was no leverage in tarrifs in the 19 century because we did not have a trade deficit.
Leverage goes to the buyer, not the seller.
Comparing Trump tarrifs to McKinley tarrifs makes no sense.
If tariffs are so bad, why did the last administration leave the tariffs on China that Trump put on them during his first term?
China, not allies.
What if trump’s presidency ends in the same way McKinley’s did? 😂
What if the sun stops shining tomorrow?
@@robertjohnson-mt8pz And the rain never ends!
The Wall Street Journal’s dismissal of Trump’s tariffs as “the dumbest trade war” ignores their strategic leverage in reshaping North American trade and security. Far from reckless protectionism, the policy has already pressured Mexico to deploy troops against fentanyl trafficking and incentivized trade shifts that align with U.S. interests. These tariffs are not just economic penalties but a calculated effort to force concessions on critical issues like immigration, drug enforcement, and manufacturing imbalances.
Beyond diplomacy, tariffs serve a broader goal-reducing U.S. reliance on foreign supply chains and reviving domestic industries. With 42% of auto parts sourced from Mexico, targeted tariffs encourage reshoring, strengthening states like Michigan and Ohio. Selective rates, such as a 10% tariff on Canadian energy versus 25% on other goods, further reveal a nuanced strategy protecting key sectors without fully severing trade ties. This push for economic sovereignty is a response to vulnerabilities exposed by global crises, ensuring long-term resilience over short-term economic discomfort.
Critics who champion free trade often ignore its failures, from stagnant wages to the U.S.’s $180 billion trade deficit with Canada and Mexico. Just as Trump’s 2018 steel tariffs led to USMCA negotiations that strengthened labor protections, these tariffs could force necessary reforms. Markets, too, have proven adaptable, with initial stock market dips stabilizing as businesses adjust.
Labeling this strategy as simply “dumb” oversimplifies a complex, high-stakes negotiation. The real question isn’t whether tariffs cause disruption-they always do-but whether that disruption secures lasting economic and security advantages. If it does, then the short-term pain is a price worth paying.
This is a great summation of everyone’s thoughts on tariffs. Sounds great in practice and then eventually you realize it’s not worth it and kind of dumb. 😂
I posted something on this exact thing and the rest of trump’s economic policies.
Funny because last video you were talking about how it would bankrupt America and now they have all bent the knee, I don’t think you are as smart as you think you are. Must be BLM’s best and brightest huh?
If the Chinese are going to be paying for the tariffs, then stuff from Temu instead of being 80% off would have to be 90% off. Otherwise, Americans would have to buy the stuff for only 70% off.
I thought tariff rates didn’t fall until 1913?
Tariffs are a tactical approach, not an overarching strategy. That is why during his first Presidency from 2018 through 2020 the trade war with China was a fiesta-del-failure for the United States which hurt the Supply Chain. The damage was only worsened by the Pandemic in 2020 which aggravated the availability of certain goods and catalyzed the increase in prices. I can understand the goals of the tariffs, but, without a strategic backbone, this can only be another foreign policy failure that will hurt common folk in the long run. And like explained in this video, you cannot achieve ALL goals concurrently.
It's ironic that the 1 policy Trump has been the most consistent on even decades before he became a politician is believing that tariffs are always good for U.S. businesses. Then again, he failed/bankrupted multiple businesses before becoming a politician, so it's not too surprising he stands by enacting tariffs regardless of what economists say. Tariffs can work effectively if used sparingly/selectively, but when you put broad tariffs on all goods from a specific or even multiple countries it makes foreign made goods more expensive, as well as U.S. made goods that include foreign produced parts.
How many companies do you own govbot?
@@Censortubes None that he bankrupted genius.
@@mustywalrus7791 thanks for holding your mummy’s boyfriend hand short bus. You proved my point.
Watching this makes more sense now... However, I do not believe that tariffs on imports will generate sufficient revenue in the present. Can anybody tell if it will?
Awww, poor WSJ, things aren't going your way, are they?
Targeted federal sales tax.
The Wall Street Journal Trump supporter. Now are repenting their support of the Mad King.
Remember.Once prices go up, they never come back down.
Any excuse to raise prices
But never a reason to lower prices
He meant that him and his friends are going to be even richer.
Surplus? Don't know what to do with it? How bout giving the money back to it's citizens. And if the country is getting richer than the citizens should too. Non different than those Arab countries that are crazy rich. All their citizens are taken care of. Wild.
Yeah the numbers don't make sense, there is not enough imports to tariff to even come close to income tax
Just like you did with all your other Companies!
Not a trade war but a drug war
Trump best not go to Buffalo then
You're not really rich unless you can afford a legion.
How many horses during mckinley years that made familys poorer and did the hay come from different countries? It was a different time
Honestly with all that chaos and instability created by Trump,
what reason would any business have to stay in the US not to mention to invest into it?
Not quite understanding whats wrong with a surplus of tax revenue 2:10
A surplus of money sitting around is useless. You can't go spend that large surplus all over the place because it causes devaluation of the currency if you overspend.
Was nice right before Reagan. They forgot one thing to mention. 71% income tax during that surplus in the US on the highest bracket. WSJ is still owned by Rupert Murdoch.
I wonder if trump will go the same way as McKinley
So in other words the tariffs worked. And by the way... his anti tariff speech was the day before his assassination
I rather have a surplus. With the surplus the government 😊could use that surplus money to help the rest of the world as long as United states people are doing great. I do not see what the down size of being a surplus.
So Trump is mackinley in reverse...
Yeah, you can’t copy William. You’ve got to be yourself, sorry Donald.
At this point, he’s just creating so much volatility in the markets to make a profit either from shorting or going long, pays to be close to trump at this point
How can a revenue SURPLUS be such a problem? I don't get it. This video describes it as if it's such an undesirable 'problem'. If the govt has a SURPLUS of money, isn't it a BOON? It means that the government can invest in other things, like infrastructure, or improving social services, or cutting taxes. How on earth can the WSJ describe this as a 'problem'?
Because the assumption is that a government already does this with existing revenue. (Though not in the US) Excess is wasted. Just extra tax on citizens.
The traitor needs to be impeached, removed, imprisoned for life!
Lol, so, the moral of the McKinley story is, if you're a president that goes hog wild on tariffs... 😏
I'm shopping only Canadians products forever and ever no more returns to import products
who asked?
Why don’t you just move there?
Free Trade is one of the key principles of economic prosperity
Trump folded like his casinos
Well @ 30 trillion in debt id say we don't have to worry about a surplus any time soon. So maybe surplus era methods like excise and predominant income tax revenue is no longer feasible in our modern time