More than 50 countries have reached out to the President to begin tariff negotiations

[CriticalStinker]

I do not know, Im not pretending to know, just asking questions... just making statements Ive heard elsewhere and want to get Di's thoughts.

First of all, the talk about rates dropping was when everyone was getting a bit "yippy". Now, all that needs to happen is for China, Europe, and a few other countries to get trade agreements finalized, and we will be fine. Regardless of whether they lower rates or not

Japan has loads of US Treasury Bonds, a trillion? So does the Middle East. So far no indication that countries are going to sell their US Treasury bonds, BEYOND a few independent moves.

ie, the Bond market isn't going to crash

default MSM and leftist Social Media equation..

If Trump does X = worst case scenario 

Short-term volitility was expected, hell, some say, necessary.

We are getting hammered a bit, some are concerned LOL and some will freak out. 

But it's not my first roller coaster ride, I can easily wait till the end of June 

But here's Bessent discussing Trump's tariffs etc, and explaining the method to thier madness. He is dry and boring, but is he wrong

He mentioned the IP angle in discussions with China. Bessent said, "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."
says he is looking forward to finding bipartisan resolutions

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/hyAdEROpMU8?si=_l8rnm0rbQVNasYO]

There have been threats of selling bonds, and there were some large sales, albeit I’m not sure who.

That said, even if no one sells, you still need buying pressure if you want to reduce rates. Someone has to buy the debt, or else things will snowball. We were the safe haven in other crisis, but now we have incentivized the world to look elsewhere.

as for the deals, we still haven’t seen what the fallout is yet. The last of the cargo ships just rolled in. We’ll see in the next week or two how much the shipping falls off. Keep in mind, it’s not just finished goods coming in. Many industries need parts to finish their goods at home. The trucking industry could also take a massive hit if cargo falls off, usually they just wait at the ports.

I don’t think signed deals just means we’re back to normal. It will take months to correct things. Then we have to ask was it worth it? Let’s say deals get signed, who does that benefit? Corporations selling abroad? So we paid the tariffs for the trade war, and deal with the fallout so corporations can benefit?

How does the average American benefit from this?

[putnam6]

There have been threats of selling bonds, and there were some large sales, albeit I’m not sure who.

That said, even if no one sells, you still need buying pressure if you want to reduce rates. Someone has to buy the debt, or else things will snowball. We were the safe haven in other crisis, but now we have incentivized the world to look elsewhere.

as for the deals, we still haven’t seen what the fallout is yet. The last of the cargo ships just rolled in. We’ll see in the next week or two how much the shipping falls off. Keep in mind, it’s not just finished goods coming in. Many industries need parts to finish their goods at home. The trucking industry could also take a massive hit if cargo falls off, usually they just wait at the ports.

I don’t think signed deals just means we’re back to normal. It will take months to correct things. Then we have to ask was it worth it? Let’s say deals get signed, who does that benefit? Corporations selling abroad? So we paid the tariffs for the trade war, and deal with the fallout so corporations can benefit?

How does the average American benefit from this?

This is where it depends on the specifics of each trade agreement with each country, and goes into each industry sector agreement.

For example, in Textiles and Apparel, these trade talks induced by tariffs could allow the potential for the opening of Vietnam as a major player. If this one move decreases Chinese dominance, we will see immediately lower landed costs per unit. IE lower end consumer prices, this spurs competitive investment between firms in a particular industry. New Warehouses, new marketing departments, increased commissions, income, and benefits, and hiring more employees. Thats just off the top of my head, potentially in my particular industry 

Here is what Grok summarizes....

 If Trump’s tariff wars succeed, the average American could benefit from more manufacturing jobs, higher wages, tax cuts, a stronger economy, and greater supply chain security. However, success hinges on companies investing domestically, minimal retaliation from trading partners, and effective use of tariff revenue—all of which face significant hurdles. Critics argue that higher consumer prices, job losses in export sectors, and a potential recession could outweigh these benefits, with studies estimating substantial costs to households. The outcome depends on execution, global reactions, and whether the U.S. can navigate the complex trade-offs without triggering broader economic harm

[CriticalStinker]

This is where it depends on the specifics of each trade agreement with each country, and goes into each industry sector agreement.

For example, in Textiles and Apparel, these trade talks induced by tariffs could allow the potential for the opening of Vietnam as a major player. If this one move decreases Chinese dominance, we will see immediately lower landed costs per unit. IE lower end consumer prices, this spurs competitive investment between firms in a particular industry. New Warehouses, new marketing departments, increased commissions, income, and benefits, and hiring more employees. Thats just off the top of my head, potentially in my particular industry 

Here is what Grok summarizes....

 If Trump’s tariff wars succeed, the average American could benefit from more manufacturing jobs, higher wages, tax cuts, a stronger economy, and greater supply chain security. However, success hinges on companies investing domestically, minimal retaliation from trading partners, and effective use of tariff revenue—all of which face significant hurdles. Critics argue that higher consumer prices, job losses in export sectors, and a potential recession could outweigh these benefits, with studies estimating substantial costs to households. The outcome depends on execution, global reactions, and whether the U.S. can navigate the complex trade-offs without triggering broader economic 

We were already decoupling from China. They got bumped down to third largest exporter to the US.

Bessent just said no negotiations are happening yet. 

I think everyone will be in for a rude awakening the next two weeks as we see the numbers from port’s though. There was nothing done to prepare for this, or alleviate the fallout for small businesses. The large corporations will be fine and likely consolidate businesses that don’t survive.

[putnam6]

We were already decoupling from China. They got bumped down to third largest exporter to the US.

Bessent just said no negotiations are happening yet. 

I think everyone will be in for a rude awakening the next two weeks as we see the numbers from port’s though. There was nothing done to prepare for this, or alleviate the fallout for small businesses. The large corporations will be fine and likely consolidate businesses that don’t survive.

Two weeks? Well, we won't have long to wait... 

Thats an incredibly pessimistic outlook in a world now full of pessimistic outlooks...

As always I don't doubt your viewpoint. Where can read more about this 2 week deadline

https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-econ...e=homepage

[CriticalStinker]

Two weeks? Well, we won't have long to wait... 

Thats an incredibly pessimistic outlook in a world now full of pessimistic outlooks...

As always I don't doubt your viewpoint. Where can read more about this 2 week deadline

The last pre tariff cargo ship just pulled in. The next few weeks will start to trend what the post tariff import/export data looks like at ports. 

A few weeks after that, we should see domestic producers work through any stockpiles they have of foreign parts/material. And the most worrisome is US entities who need rare earth to operate.

[putnam6]

 

The last pre tariff cargo ship just pulled in. The next few weeks will start to trend what the post tariff import/export data looks like at ports. 

A few weeks after that, we should see domestic producers work through any stockpiles they have of foreign parts/material. And the most worrisome is US entities who need rare earth to operate.

Fair enough .... then it's obvious we couldn't maintain the status quo, we have to bring selected industries back to the US. Which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. It was well past the time to do so, and we could have switched much earlier, but nobody wants the environmental impact of REM mining and refining in the US, well, nobody on the left does. thus China owns this sector for now

https://newrepublic.com/article/194514/r...hina-trade
 

The goal wasn’t wealth from the rare earths themselves. After all, the rare earth market is only slightly larger than that of vegan cheese or tonic water; negligible compared to China’s gross domestic product. Instead China saw these materials as foundational to its high-tech ambitions—from EVs and wind turbines, to missile guidance systems and MRIs. So, it invested tremendous time and capital first in domestic supply, then in capturing global flows.

Their material advantage was a boost for Chinese manufacturing—not only was China producing the materials, it was increasingly consuming them. Co-locating processing facilities near end-use customers allowed quicker iteration and tighter feedback, speeding up product design. These are advantages that only proximity can deliver. Before long, China dominated not just rare earth production, but also magnet making and other downstream industries built on the rare earth foundation.
At the same time, the West saw metal making as a dirty industry, ripe for outsourcing. Many rare earth facilities produce a tremendous amount of waste in addition to radioactive elements. Mining was a hard sell to local communities. Many countries legislated heavily to restrict them. It didn’t matter that these resources would power a green society or the next generation of weaponry. We ended up gutting the industry.
The U.S. once spoke the language of mining and metallurgy. Now we can barely understand it. It’s like a child of immigrants who never learned their parents’ language—because it was never passed down.

The situation exposes a glaring vulnerability for U.S. production ambitions. MP Materials, America’s only rare earth mine, shipped over 80 percent of its output to a Chinese firm over the past few years. Not by choice—but because the U.S. lacks domestic capacity and expertise to process MP’s output. They themselves have yet to figure out how to make use of most of their production, although they have made steps to diversity.

Now, facing retaliatory Chinese tariffs, MP lost more than 80 percent of its market. Their defiant promise of “reindustrializing the rare earth supply chain” is bold, but without substantial investment, government backing, or a new customer, their future is uncertain at best. The conclusion is hard to avoid: There are no viable alternatives to Chinese rare earths in the near term.
But all is not lost. As our real-estate-steeped president should know, legacy infrastructure can be replaced by smarter design. Our opportunity lies not in replication, but in reinvention. We can build new supply chains that are cleaner, more efficient, and more resilient. This is our Ray Kroc moment.

And we’re not starting from zero. Venture markets are waking up to investment in rare materials. Boston Metal is pioneering cleaner refining techniques that could unlock mineral deposits once considered uneconomic. Noveon Magnetics and Momentum Technologies are enhancing their capacity to make magnets and processing materials domestically—albeit on a small scale. Newlab is bridging U.S. and Middle Eastern capital to back a new generation of mining and materials entrepreneurs.

Still, new technology alone won’t solve the challenge. We need to invest in people. Fewer than 700 students in the U.S. are enrolled in mining-related fields today. That’s not a pipeline—it’s a warning. We need new programs, new professors, and global experts teaching the next generation how to extract, refine, and process the materials that power modern economies
 
We must also reduce regulatory duplication and build a federal workforce that understands material flows, mining and industrial policy. That may mean carving out a new agency within the Department of Commerce or Interior—one that can vet credible projects and distinguish industrial strategy from opportunism. Right now, too many companies are mining resources in Washington, D.C., not in the ground. And as the federal government doesn’t understand the market dynamics outside of pockets in the Defense Department and Energy, we’re beholden to companies that are focused on their own pockets rather than the interests of the U.S.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/5MnxRqWAFWlELgtfLFJ6uJJck

Rare earth minerals (REMs) are critical to various high-tech and defense industries, but their direct contribution to U.S. GDP is relatively small in dollar terms. In 2024, the U.S. imported about $170 million worth of rare earth metals, a fraction of the $21.4 trillion U.S. GDP (2023 estimate). For context, this is less than the $3.4 billion spent on avocado imports. However, their economic importance lies in their enabling role across key sectors, not their raw market value.

REMs, including elements like neodymium, dysprosium, and yttrium, are essential for manufacturing advanced technologies: smartphones, electric vehicle motors, wind turbines, medical imaging equipment, and defense systems like F-35 jets and missile guidance. These industries collectively contribute significantly to GDP—tech manufacturing alone accounted for about 10% of GDP in recent years, while defense spending is roughly 3.5%. REMs are a small but critical input, with no easy substitutes, making supply chain disruptions a potential economic choke point.

China’s dominance (70% of U.S. REM imports, 92% of global processing) amplifies this vulnerability. Recent export controls by China, as noted in 2025 reports, could raise costs or halt production in dependent industries, indirectly impacting GDP through supply chain shocks. For example, a 2010 Chinese embargo caused global REM prices to spike sevenfold, disrupting manufacturing. The U.S. is investing in domestic sources—like the Mountain Pass mine and a potential 2.34 billion-ton deposit in Wyoming—but these won’t fully replace imports for years.

While REMs’ primary economic impact is indirect, their strategic role in enabling high-value industries makes them disproportionately critical. A prolonged supply cutoff could shave GDP growth by disrupting tech and defense output, though precise estimates are hard to pin down due to complex supply chains. Conversely, developing domestic REM supply could boost GDP modestly through mining and processing jobs, with broader benefits for industrial resilience.

[CriticalStinker]

Fair enough .... then it's obvious we couldn't maintain the status quo, we have to bring selected industries back to the US. Which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. It was well past the time to do so, and we could have switched much earlier, but nobody wants the environmental impact of REM mining and refining in the US, well, nobody on the left does. thus China owns this sector for now

https://newrepublic.com/article/194514/r...hina-trade
 

https://x.com/i/grok/share/5MnxRqWAFWlELgtfLFJ6uJJck

I agree we should have been more strategic with securing certain industries.

But we aren’t being strategic, we waged economic war against the whole world, and didn’t have any preparation or relief to help things at home.

again, we were making good pace at decoupling from China, and we should have strengthened other trade relations to get better footing and make plans.

this is the problem with one person deciding everything. Trumps track record is chaos, and it hasn’t worked out just as much, if not more than it has.

[putnam6]

I agree we should have been more strategic with securing certain industries.

But we aren’t being strategic, we waged economic war against the whole world, and didn’t have any preparation or relief to help things at home.

again, we were making good pace at decoupling from China, and we should have strengthened other trade relations to get better footing and make plans.

this is the problem with one person deciding everything. Trumps track record is chaos, and it hasn’t worked out just as much, if not more than it has.

Come on, Trump has advisors, Bessent is behind it 100%, and I enjoyed his talk in the video. 

There is potential for recession, but it is less than is being portrayed. 

Rapid Response 47 reposted
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
@SecScottBessent
@POTUS
doesn’t just blame our trading partners for taking advantage of us; he blames previous administrations who allowed us to get here in the first place. We are righting the wrongs of the past and using trades negotiations to rebalance the economy and rebuild manufacturing, which will lead to job growth and real wage increases for hardworking Americans.

Would you view Bessent meeting China’s top economic official as a positive? I do.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac...e=homepage 
 

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet with China’s top economic official later this week in Switzerland, both officials’ departments announced on Tuesday, signalling a starting point for negotiations over a tariff onslaught that US President Donald Trump has directed at Beijing, among other major trading partners.
The office of the US Trade Representative and the Treasury Department said Greer and Bessent would travel together to Geneva on Thursday and would also meet with Swiss President Karin Ketter-Sutter to discuss negotiations over reciprocal trade.
The statements did not name the Chinese officials who would be attending the meeting from Beijing, but the delegation would likely include Vice-Premier He Lifeng, who serves as the country’s chief trade negotiator.

[CriticalStinker]

Come on, Trump has advisors, Bessent is behind it 100%, and I enjoyed his talk in the video. 

There is potential for recession, but it is less than is being portrayed. 

Rapid Response 47 reposted
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent
@SecScottBessent
@POTUS
doesn’t just blame our trading partners for taking advantage of us; he blames previous administrations who allowed us to get here in the first place. We are righting the wrongs of the past and using trades negotiations to rebalance the economy and rebuild manufacturing, which will lead to job growth and real wage increases for hardworking Americans.

Would you view Bessent meeting China’s top economic official as a positive? I do.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac...e=homepage 
 

Canada is the number one importer of US goods. Of course they’ll have a trade imbalance with around a tenth of the population.

We exported more than we imported from Australia. Still got hit with tariffs.

Mexico was the number one exporter to the US, but they’re poor and have around half the population. But rotating cheap manufacturing to them could help curb illegal immigration to the US. If we help them get more stable, immigrants are going to want to go to a Spanish speaking country with jobs they can perform.

This is all chaos and arbitrary.

[putnam6]

Canada is the number one importer of US goods. Of course they’ll have a trade imbalance with around a tenth of the population.

We exported more than we imported from Australia. Still got hit with tariffs.

Mexico was the number one exporter to the US, but they’re poor and have around half the population. But rotating cheap manufacturing to them could help curb illegal immigration to the US. If we help them get more stable, immigrants are going to want to go to a Spanish speaking country with jobs they can perform.

This is all chaos and arbitrary.

Thats not how Trump defines a trade imbalance, it's not dollar for dollar, it's about restrictions and regulations we don't impose on Canada, and Trump's correct.  Mentioned earlier in the thread, pain in the ass warehousing in Canada as an American business 

So Trump is just enriching himself and the corporations, he is going to go through all of his stuff for 8 years, and now he is going to just scam for money. As if he isn't the most investigated and litigated businessperson EVER

Am I following correctly...

Said it earlier, in my business, if we can get just a 10-15% lower on landed cost, it could easily finance a growth spurt. In Apparel, my niche sector, we lost 27% of our companies and over 400 retailers OOB in the 9-state territory during COVID. It's ripe for a rebuild, We had 83% of the market space leased, now it's less than 60%. Almost 20% fewer Americans work in clothing and apparel than they did in 2019. 

Many small business-dependent sectors had the same 5-year trajectory, especially seasonal consumer goods. 2023 T&A was 8.7% of China's GDP and employed 16 million Chinese. 

It seems chaotic because it's never been done before, as for the arbitrary, I think you are caught up in the tariffs like they are permanent, they are just a means to spur negotiations at a quicker pace. 

We will know soon enough, both sides are meeting this weekend...