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

[putnam6]

okay well 15% is fine as long as there's no pressure for eu to reduce their food quality regulations i don't mind paying 15% extra to avoid american antibiotic-laden pus-cheese and glypho-grain flour. sucks that we have to pay extra and ship stuff in from halfway across the world just to get edible food, but whatcha gonna do? although i understand american pharma is working on another pill to help people cope with being poisoned all the time, haha.

Have no doubt EU's food regulations are superior to the US one reason I buy Aldi's when I can

Supposedly, RFKjr is working on the FDA's quality and additives across the board.

[UltraBudgie]

Have no doubt EU's food regulations are superior to the US one reason I buy Aldi's when I can

Supposedly, RFKjr is working on the FDA's quality and additives across the board.

they're not going to be able to fix the wheat problem because the land is essentially dead and there's no alternative but to use industrial chemicals any more. drove through kansas last year and took the state routes through the fields and it was very sad. not to confident in govm't stopping unhealthy pesticides https://www.commondreams.org/news/dicamba-herbicide it seems like more talk than walk. much as i want to respect the american farmer they let this happen so shame on them although i suppose they had to choice but to knuckle under to market pressure or lose the farm... many did...

europe isn't always better but at least they ban some stuff; even with aldi you still have to be careful for example there's a lawsuit saying their avocado oil is fake https://www.classaction.org/news/aldi-10...uit-claims and tests showing that most from spain are adulterated, ah well caveat emptor...

problem is in international trade these quality standards that block product from market are lumped in as "trade restrictions" and "protectionism", which in and of themselves sound bad in a free-trade sense.

[putnam6]

they're not going to be able to fix the wheat problem because the land is essentially dead and there's no alternative but to use industrial chemicals any more. drove through kansas last year and took the state routes through the fields and it was very sad. not to confident in govm't stopping unhealthy pesticides https://www.commondreams.org/news/dicamba-herbicide it seems like more talk than walk. much as i want to respect the american farmer they let this happen so shame on them although i suppose they had to choice but to knuckle under to market pressure or lose the farm... many did...

europe isn't always better but at least they ban some stuff; even with aldi you still have to be careful for example there's a lawsuit saying their avocado oil is fake https://www.classaction.org/news/aldi-10...uit-claims and tests showing that most from spain are adulterated, ah well caveat emptor...

problem is in international trade these quality standards that block product from market are lumped in as "trade restrictions" and "protectionism", which in and of themselves sound bad in a free-trade sense.

Im not a big wheat person, but Ive heard that same scuttlebutt about other crops too. 


 

The rumor of "poisoned wheat fields" from excessive pesticide use contains some truth but is heavily overstated. Pesticides are used in U.S. wheat production, and residues can be present, but the practice of pre-harvest glyphosate desiccation is not widespread, and residues are generally within safe limits set by the EPA and FDA. Acute pesticide poisoning is a concern, primarily for farmworkers, and environmental contamination from runoff or drift is real but not unique to wheat. Claims linking glyphosate to widespread health issues like gluten sensitivity lack solid evidence, and newer concerns about PFAS in pesticides require further investigation but are not yet directly tied to wheat. The U.S. wheat supply is not "poisoned" in a way that poses immediate, widespread consumer risk, though long-term exposure and environmental impacts warrant continued scrutiny and improved regulation.

[putnam6]

For the best perspective on consumer pricing, one needs to realize the variance in costs by region and zip code.

https://www.bls.gov/regions/news-release...tm?states=

Here's my particular zip code's CPI for the last 3 years, YMMV

Area prices increased 0.6 percent over the two months and 1.8 percent over the past year, BUT WE ARE DOWN since December, and compared to the same 6 months last year




Heres the south region CPI data its also down



Chart 1. Over-the-year percent change in CPI-U, South region, June 2022–June 2025MonthAll itemsAll items less food and energyJun 2022
9.86.7Jul 2022
9.46.8Aug 2022
8.97.1Sep 2022
8.77.4Oct 2022
8.17.1Nov 2022
7.76.9Dec 2022
7.06.5Jan 2023
6.96.3Feb 2023
6.46.2Mar 2023
5.36.3Apr 2023
5.56.3May 2023
4.46.0Jun 2023
3.35.5Jul 2023
3.45.0Aug 2023
4.14.8Sep 2023
4.24.6Oct 2023
3.74.5Nov 2023
3.44.4Dec 2023
3.74.2Jan 2024
3.44.3Feb 2024
3.74.4Mar 2024
3.84.0Apr 2024
3.33.6May 2024
3.23.3Jun 2024
2.93.1Jul 2024
2.93.1Aug 2024
2.32.9Sep 2024
2.13.0Oct 2024
2.53.1Nov 2024
2.73.1Dec 2024
2.83.1Jan 2025
2.83.1Feb 2025
2.32.6Mar 2025
1.92.4Apr 2025
2.02.5May 2025
2.02.5Jun 2025
2.32.6

[DBCowboy]

Umm, just checking in.

Have we entered the GREAT DEPRESSION yet?

Or were people just urinating in their tighty-whity's?

[IDELB2006]

Again, 2.9% is nothing 10 bucks on 350 bucks worth of groceries..... 

While I realize it doesn't apply to everybody, for my region, gasoline prices are down, offsetting losses in our groceries 

Furthermore, all indications are that these fluctuations were due to uncertainty in the market, which will be abated as more and more trade deals are signed 

Lets see how the markets react to this news 

EU is being announced as agreed upon by Trump


[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...36-645.jpg]

I know you have mentioned before that you are okay with $1000-$2000 extra expenses this year, because you hope there is a payoff at the end of all this inflation.

What my experience has been is 20+ years of inflation for the war on terrorism that has not made America safer, on top of 5 years of inflation for flattening the curve of covid, on top of 8 or so years of tariffs for the trade war with China.

Trump was in office for portions of all three, and if he truly plans on making inroads into Americas trade imbalances, and spurring production in America, that process will never end.

Forgive me if I don't cheer on our politicians latest ploy to decide which companies get the best trade deals at my expense.

[putnam6]

I know you have mentioned before that you are okay with $1000-$2000 extra expenses this year, because you hope there is a payoff at the end of all this inflation.

What my experience has been is 20+ years of inflation for the war on terrorism that has not made America safer, on top of 5 years of inflation for flattening the curve of covid, on top of 8 or so years of tariffs for the trade war with China.

Trump was in office for portions of all three, and if he truly plans on making inroads into Americas trade imbalances, and spurring production in America, that process will never end.

Forgive me if I don't cheer on our politicians latest ploy to decide which companies get the best trade deals at my expense.

Good Luck Chuck....




You miss-remembered 

I said in my situation, our gasoline prices are so low that it offsets the extra cost elsewhere. No more, no less.

Ive also said I choose to be economically optimistic regardless of who is President
We will save a lot over last year's expenses on gasoline alone 

My premise was that anybody in an area with .30 less in a gallon of gasoline per 3 fillups saves the extra 2.9% per every $350 spent on tariff-raised prices so far.

Additionally, Ive shown just earlier today where in my home zipcodes and overall region have lower CPI virtually across the board, and in some categories a lot less.

At my age and income level, once a President is in office, I want the economy to run smoothly. I don't have the years to piss around with anymore

[IDELB2006]

Good Luck Chuck....

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...35-848.jpg]


You miss-remembered 

I said in my situation, our gasoline prices are so low that it offsets the extra cost elsewhere. No more, no less.

Ive also said I choose to be economically optimistic regardless of who is President
We will save a lot over last year's expenses on gasoline alone 

My premise was that anybody in an area with .30 less in a gallon of gasoline per 3 fillups saves the extra 2.9% per every $350 spent on tariff-raised prices so far.

Additionally, Ive shown just earlier today where in my home zipcodes and overall region have lower CPI virtually across the board, and in some categories a lot less.

At my age and income level, once a President is in office, I want the economy to run smoothly. I don't have the years to piss around with anymore

I wasn't to far off.

Link

You were comparing additional costs to what you expected for savings. Unfortunately for me, or fortunately, I do not expect the same savings to offset the price increases I am seeing.

And I'm in the same situation as you. If things work out well for me I can afford the good dog food in my retirement.

[putnam6]

I wasn't to far off.

Link

You were comparing additional costs to what you expected for savings. Unfortunately for me, or fortunately, I do not expect the same savings to offset the price increases I am seeing.

And I'm in the same situation as you. If things work out well for me I can afford the good dog food in my retirement.

Just because you suggest you weren't far off, doesn't make it true

I didn't SAY, SUGGEST, or infer I expected $2000-$3000 in losses in 12 months because of tariffs, and then hope to recoup in the rise of the Trump economy

I did say I expect no losses because in the modest rise in CPI these first 6 months, whatever losses we do have will be more than covered by our significantly lower gasoline prices in the southern region of the US.

The premise of the thread was that the worst-case scenario would be IMMEDIATE run-away inflation, FOLLOWED BY long-term losses as countries charged reciprocal tariffs

That hasn't happened, Captain, at least not in my world, and I sincerely hope it doesn't happen in yours.

Retire?



Pretty sure I'll be working in some way, shape, or form, right till I croak, it isn't in the cards
to be able to voluntarily retire

I can eat beans and rice, atleast for a while

[putnam6]

Now, instead of Putin slurping Europe's Energy milkshake dollars, Trump and Uncle Sam now have a 750 billion energy shake they are sharing with 2 straws and 600 billion in other investments

Sure, this is a BCSWSFB salesman BS to an extent, but it seems more realistic than its certain economic ruin polar opposite 

Commercial Diplomacy...





Karl Mehta

@karlmehta
The Scotland Meeting Just Changed Everything—And Nobody Saw This Coming. Trump and von der Leyen announced a 15% tariff deal, but that was just the cover story. The real deal was never about tariffs. Since the media won't tell you, here's the real breakthrough...
Everyone's talking about the 15% tariff rate. But they're missing the massive shift happening behind the scenes. This wasn't about avoiding a trade war, it was about engineering the largest investment commitment in modern history.

Here's what actually happened at Turnberry: Europe agreed to spend $1.4 trillion with America over the next three years. $750 billion in American energy purchases. $600 billion in additional US investments. These numbers are staggering.

The "15% tariff" everyone's focused on? It's higher than pre-2024 levels, but it avoids the economic chaos both sides were staring at. Trump originally threatened 30%, then escalated to 50% tariffs. Europe just "bought down" the tariff rate with unprecedented investment
But here's the strategic masterstroke most people missed: Certain sectors got complete exemptions from tariffs. Aircraft and components. Semiconductor equipment. Critical chemicals. Some agricultural products. These aren't random—they're strategic supply chains 

While media focused on the tariff headlines, Trump secured something far more valuable: A guaranteed customer for American energy exports. Massive European investment in US infrastructure and defense. A framework that other countries are now desperate to replicate.

•  Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen at Turnberry, Scotland, on July 27, 2025, signaling a surprising $1.4 trillion investment deal—$750 billion in U.S. energy and $600 billion in infrastructure—hidden behind a publicized 15% tariff agreement, as reported by X user Karl Mehta, contrasting with mainstream media focus on tariffs alone.
  
• Historical context reveals Trump’s tariff strategy evolved from a 30% threat in 2024 to a 50% escalation, with Europe’s investment commitment reducing it to 15%, a tactic validated by Japan’s $550 billion deal, supported by Atlantic Council data showing a shift from traditional diplomacy to "commercial diplomacy."
  
• Economic data from Wikipedia indicates U.S. tariffs rose from 2.5% to 27% by April 2025, then stabilized at 15.8% by June, suggesting this deal leverages U.S. economic power to secure long-term trade advantages, challenging EU narratives of mutual partnership with evidence of asymmetric benefits for the U.S.