Could Similar Tariffs to Trump's Plan Fix an Australian Unemployment Problem?

L[Deactivated] on 08/04/2025 - 15:54

As global trade dynamics shift, the dinner table conversation around tariffs has resurfaced.

What if Australia decided to implement tariffs on imported goods?

Manufacturing jobs have been hollowed out by successive governments, with many regional areas suffering the brunt of the Coalition's policies for advocating free trade. Over the past few decades, many aspects of our society have suffered some devolution with a large number of high paying jobs being shifted to low income countries.

Australia does not manufacture anything meaningful anymore. The jobs created would need to involve more than just assembling of products. Tesla is widely touted as being a car assembler, not a car manufacturer.

One of the side effects of tariffs could include a decrease in income taxes.

What types of jobs do you believe could be re-shored back into Australia? Would you consider working in those industries if they adhered to developed nation safety standards? This is crucial, as many industries are often reported in the media as being undesirable due to lax standards in lower-income countries. Surely, Australia could manufacture lithium batteries better than most countries they are currently being produced in.

Overall safety is improved as a net result. A net benefit to the global economy is created by utilising tariffs. Adam Smith's theories of a benefit to society only seem relevant if you suspend disbelief and do not price in the effect to workers, environment and other external costs. Globalisation has not worked. It has created a culture where people are Ice Cold to others, demeaning them in bad employment situations where they are exploited for a few dollars.

By bringing back jobs to Australia, it goes a long way to remediating this issue. Interest groups focus on sustainable this and sustainable that, but how about starting with locally produced goods?

Can Australia keep affording to run trade deficits with so many countries? Where are the good jobs? Sure, there are service jobs here and there but they are low paying jobs that cannot arguably sustain a family starting from nothing, in that you cannot actually afford a house with a backyard.

Education & Work

Comments

  • DingoBilly on 08/04/2025 - 17:32
    +6

    No, it's a stupid idea. Sorry bud.

  • Pufff on 08/04/2025 - 20:04

    No

  • simplystu on 08/04/2025 - 21:03
    +1

    soo much above to digest - Only points I wish to add …

    It takes 12-18 months to build a sinlge house.
    Trump wants to build factories (to then be US centric) … but that will take 3+ years until such factories are fully operational.

    All while - imports from China == 104% (so for everything costing $1 - will now cost $2.04).
    Since soo many things made in China/Taiwan … at end of day - will be US public that will suffer (for next 2-3 years).

    • Ooops on 09/04/2025 - 11:56

      3 - 7 years to build because that's not only the structure side of things. You have to secure loans, government approvals, software development, robotics, automation, testing, etc.

      After the build, you have to negotiate contracts, set-up shipping lanes and distribution channels, etc.

      Oh, and you need to find competent labour for all of that as well.

    • whatgift on 11/04/2025 - 14:40

      And the prices for the goods produced will likely be a lot more expensive, and not much different than the tariffed price.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2025 - 21:33
    -2

    Coalition's policies for advocating free trade

    Both Majors support Free trade and they are both correct to do so the very fact you cannot understand that… is a bit worrying - it is this kind of mis-understanding of basic economics as to why so many stupid people vote Greens and the fact you are blaming the LNP for Free trade when almost every economic textbook ever written supports it shows you gotta agenda…or you need to spend a few minutes learning basic economics

    With that said Albo is 100% spot on for not retaliating to the tarriffs as they will ultimately be paid by the U.S consumer

    where Australia has f—ked itself is allowing property ownership by foreigners and permanent migration - we should not allow permanent migration unless you marry an Australian we need to adopt a similar approch to migration like UAE and Monaco

    Perma Migration has been on a net total negative for Australia for over 2 decades now

    We also have shot ourselves by over relying on 1 trading partner in China who i have nothing against but we have too much concentratation risk from 1 nation

    as for Trumps tarrifs he has either 'gone mad' or has a master plan - i tend to think he is 'insane' and the people advising him are and tbh i found it funny up until my super tanked the other day [however i am not a billionaire so perhaps im wrong] but to me it feels like trade negotiations are ment to take weeks if not months and he has just actioned 185 in a few days….

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2025 - 22:53
      -4

      im going to 'play' the contrarian to myself for a comment

      Trumps Tarrifs will result in more tax dollars entering the government coffers it will also likely lower interest rates meaning the 37tillion US debt accumulate less interest

      Trumps tarrifs will be paid for the U.S consumer and this indirectly result in taxing consumers more - sure he will f—k the rest of the world over but he might be able to repair the U.S budget defict in 'doing so'

      he clearly is a 'mad man' but the insanity of the plan might 'actually' see fruit if they can negotiate better deals from nations such as Vietnam, India, China etc

      ultimately he will sink the global economy but the U.S government will get a overall bigger slice of the pie….

      although i hope he realises this is 'madness' there might be a method to his madness that could see a better outcome for the U.S government and in the 'long' term a better outcome of U.S citizen as the government repairs its budget defict

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 08/04/2025 - 22:58
        -3

        now to play the reponse to my contrarian post

        yes but you dont use a nuclear warhead to knock down a few buildings when a standard wrecking ball would do…this negotiations could of happened with the main countries Trump had issue with over a slightly longer but less damaging to the economy and investor sentiment

        the SandP is legit down 22 percent since he was elected….. the guy is insane, perhaps the outcome will be worth it, perhaps not but their are better ways to do things and he clearly just loves the spotlight….

        surely Elon and co would of told him this was a madness…..surely someone would of….

        • tenpercent on 09/04/2025 - 12:04

          but less damaging to the economy and investor sentiment

          I suspect Elon and all the other billionaires and millionaires in his cabinet (and many of the billionaires outside the cabinet) have cash on the sidelines ready to buy up discounted equities and other assets for cheap. I suspect that is the primary motive (disaster capitalism has been popular with that ilk lately) and that repairing the US budget deficit is secondary.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/04/2025 - 12:21

        Interest rates won't be decreasing, China is no longer buying US treasuries. The US will no longer be able to export their inflation and the rest of the world will drop the USD and shift towards trade with BRICS members.

        If this policy was sane, they wouldn't be announcing tarrifs which take effect in a few days time. Any potential upside won't be seen for 5-10 years

  • AustriaBargain on 08/04/2025 - 22:29
    +9

    Nope. Investing in Australian industry would help though. End all incentives to invest in existing houses and increase incentives to invest in Australian companies. Clear up an "Australian made and owned" mark so it means something and turn it into a status symbol for those who can afford it. And promote Australian products, including beef and wine, in countries not lead by mad men.

  • cashless on 09/04/2025 - 00:23
    +2

    Imagine how excruciating it will be for the orange twat when he has to back down & start negotiating with other countries.
    Of course, he’s so thick skinned (and followed by such loyal sycophants) that he’ll paint it as a victory.

  • Jolakot on 09/04/2025 - 02:43
    -3

    We need more people unemployed, not less.

    • larndis on 09/04/2025 - 08:03

      All of that to make some plastic trinkets here instead of shipping them from China? Sorry, but what's the benefit?

      • Shape on 09/04/2025 - 08:30

        Smart toasters, Squishmallows Plush Bluetooth Headphones, and several colour variations of tawdry string bikinis for onlyfans models

    • Ooops on 09/04/2025 - 11:59
      +1

      Short-sighted on many levels.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2025 - 13:04

      Thinking outside the box? Too hard for most people.

      What you outline is basically what the USA is going for. Someone will own those factories, and those people support Trump.

      Notice the administration always stress support for legal immigration.

      As you explained, Australia already does this without being blatant about it. But most people live in their bubbles and don't realise how much of the population is working poor. They just wake up one day and wonder 'where did all these immigrants come from? How come I can't afford a house? Why is there not enough supply of housing??'

    • maraco on 09/04/2025 - 16:19

      No need for more drones, I've found one here.

  • Zonty on 09/04/2025 - 06:39

    This tariff will harm USA because minimum wages and usa$ value higher. No matter what they do cost of production always high.
    Even, USA become self dependent and want to export goods what is guarantee other countries will give him free trade agreement.

  • ForkSnorter on 09/04/2025 - 06:46
    +7

    Australian manufacturing can't compete with powerhouses like China except in tiny niche areas. Trying to transform the Australian economy to compete with them would just make us poorer. Our strengths are resources, agriculture and services. We should invest more in STEM.

    • Mugsy on 09/04/2025 - 07:39

      Yep, Australian manufacturing couldn't compete with Vietnam let alone China.

      Australian wages won't ever be as low as those other countries, and our population is too small for a sufficient manufacturing workforce that'll be competitive on the world market.

      Robots and automated manufacturing require a massive initial investment. No one setting up a manufacturing plant (or their bank) would want to wait 20yrs to recoup their costs in an attempt to keep prices competitive.

      Some onshoring of manufacturing is good… we learnt this during covid. But only to supply what is needed domestically during a lockdown type event.

  • jacross on 09/04/2025 - 07:48

    Tariffs make things more expensive. This can't be waived away. If things are more expensive that makes it harder for a business to be viable, both directly (increased cost of inputs), and indirectly (customers will shift their demand curve as they have less money).

    This is on aggregate. There will be potentially some winners.

    All that to solve an unemployment problem we don't have?

    Australia doesn't do certain industries because we don't have a comparative advantage in them, and manufacturing is a dying industry in terms of human jobs anyway.

    There is a looming labour economics crisitunity. AI. But tariffs won't solve that either. They'd just determine where the computers are.

  • Joey2scoops on 09/04/2025 - 08:00
    +1

    Who dat? Account is one day old?

  • saltypete on 09/04/2025 - 08:08

    If you mean employment in manufacturing No.
    Australia has options coming to use AI and robotics to manufacture things here. But actual employment through this would have to be trivial.

    The main thing that we need to learn from Trump is to be vigilant about people picking up any of their stupid ideas. We already see bits of it are very attractive to some here already. It would destroy our country.

    • tenpercent on 09/04/2025 - 12:09

      And who's going to manufacture the robots and computers and GPU farms, and who's going to manufacture the replacement parts for the robots and computers and GPU farms?

      • saltypete on 11/04/2025 - 08:59

        The idea is that we do that. Like all manufacturing now, some parts better made overseas and other parts made here.
        Chips and motors are clearly very specialised. Lots of the rest is straighforward engineering that lots of current firms in OZ are very good at.

  • TightAl on 09/04/2025 - 08:41
    +3

    Bro been reading too many MAGA posts on X.
    Plenty of jobs Australian's refuse to do, look at farming, Australia literally forces backpackers and fly plane loads of PNG folks to pick fruit.
    You'll have the same for manufacturing.

    And really, if you can't go name industries that make SENSE to open up onshore, well you have you answer.

    • Mad Max on 09/04/2025 - 08:47
      -6

      Plenty of jobs Australian's refuse to do, look at farming,

      That's because they "earn" more on Centrelink from the comfort of their home.

      • smartazz104 on 09/04/2025 - 11:07
        +2

        Citation required.

      • larndis on 09/04/2025 - 12:10
        -1

        Would you do it for less than $400 a week?

        • Mad Max on 09/04/2025 - 12:56

          If that was my only option yes, of course I would do it. Either do the job that you can get and have money to buy food, or starve. Then once I get the basic job to support myself (including fruit picking) I would do everything I can to improve my condition as soon as I can.
          But lazy people are offered a free basic life without having to do anything, and they are happy with that or they complain that they should be given more because prices have gone up.
          That's the problem.

          • larndis on 09/04/2025 - 16:41
            +1

            @Mad Max: What does fruit picking pay? Would you be able to support yourself? Would you be willing to move to do it?

  • figjamone on 09/04/2025 - 10:05

    We dont have Manufacturing jobs in australia, Have you considered the cost of introducing it back into australia. The places where manfacturing was done is now 10 story apartments so how far from main cities do you want it. Then there is transport to and from, not to mention building to start then store parts ect, people you need to train to do the job. Time involved to run a business train retrain employees.
    There are so much against this.
    Education has been forced to go to year 12 where tradies usually went to year 10 was sick of school so they got a trade. Most young people dont want a trade to them its hard work, how can i work from home if i need to go to a factort or a work site. This requires more work!
    Now that you have found a suitable site and council approval to build near transport. Then it can take 3-4 years to get setup and start running.
    Trump is gone there is no tariffs to worry about and you shut your factory which sits there waiting for a devloper to come along to buy the property at a loss.
    Still no jobs. And no tradies to build any houses or appartments so your kids can afford to buy.
    By then i will be retired unable to get a decent tradie to fix the pointing on my roof which need to be replaced at a price that is under 6 figures for 1 days work.
    Have a great day.

    • tenpercent on 09/04/2025 - 12:12

      Both sides of politics in Australia, America, the UK and dare I say most of the west have no long term vision for their countries or their people. They serve corporate masters who do have a long term vision for themselves and their corporations.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/04/2025 - 19:20
      -1

      Yeah, sadly, that might be the end result.

      However, MAGA is supposed to be a long term transition and if voters stick to the Republicans, only then they continue implementing the plans over a decade. The transformation has to take place over that long term horizon, and even though democracy poses a risk to this, I don't think it will hold back transformative change if the broader electorate desires it.

      The only example I can give is that the Coalition was in power from 2013 to 2022, which was the most transformative part of globalisation, i.e. the rise of China took place. Deep down inside, I think something was botched along the way even if people don't agree…

      Furthermore, honestly the US is broke, and they cannot afford to keep running trade deficits. A family has a budget, but the US government doesn't seem to have one because the debt is monetised by the Fed.

      Trump knows he has to try turning the tide. Peter Schiff kept talking about the US government being hooked on debt, but his tune seems to have changed now tariffs are here…

      I feel the same two sided argument arises. A lot of the comments above mention I didn't think about the economic consequences on the other side. I did, but I didn't think it would be relevant because you would have to rely on Keynesian economics which is different to Austrian economics which is what Trump's camp is pushing.

      There is always two sides of the economic argument. It just seems like that tide is skewed towards Keynesian economics which is flawed because the end result is that the music stops for the economy once you have a politician of a "certain character" elected. That's why Keynesian economics is broken.

      Adam Smith's theories have been broken from day 1. That's why there is a quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

      How can someone like Trump come into power and the mainstream economic theory falls apart? I'm not sure why that happens.

      I didn't mean to target your comment in particular for this response, but you seem like you might be open minded on the topic.

  • Waltervp on 09/04/2025 - 10:09
    +2

    The reality is that we cannot do it as cheap and as well. Australia tries really hard to compete. So if you are prepared to pay significantly higher prices for everything then yes. But expect enormous inflation and inferior products. The reason we have international trade is because all countries have different skills and resources and if we all do what we can do best we get better products and due to size of internarional markets we also get the advantage of cheaper manufacturing because of quantity. Making a million cars is cheaper then making 1000 on a per car basis…. We need to find our niche and do it well and export. Maybe it's tourism, maybe it's storing depleted uranium or exporting livestock or wine,… think of it as trying to make bread at home, it isn't necessarily cheaper or better for all.

  • justgooddeals on 09/04/2025 - 10:31
    +3

    This is what happens when you make cut backs to the education system.

    Uneducated swill. Vote in uneducated swine.

    And the whole world pays

  • goody on 09/04/2025 - 11:25
    +1

    So we're going to be paying $50 for a t shirt and $20,000 for a lounge?
    If you want to go back to the "good ol' days" a time machine is more practical than tariffs.

    • tenpercent on 09/04/2025 - 12:12
      +2

      There are lounges still made in Australia and no they don't all cost $20k. Get a grip.

  • Penguin30 on 09/04/2025 - 11:28
    -5

    I think people are taking the word Tariff and making it more than it is.

    Trump is reciprocating the costs other countries have on the US…

    Basically just matching what is there. So our 10% "Tariff" is just the import Tax (10%) on other countries for anything above $1000 we import.

    He is effectively making It Net zero for US.

    Unfortunately that comes at the cost for US citizens importing things.

    I think in the long term it will create a discussion between countries and maybe lots of these taxes will be reduced.

    Unfortunately right now prices rise.
    Interesting to see how it all plays out.

    • Ooops on 09/04/2025 - 12:01

      Long term outcome, US will get left out of new contracts and partnerships.

      8.2 billion people on this planet, not doing trade with 340m it's a short term pain. Think it like an ingrown nail, painful at first, much better later on.

      P.S. I would rather have a world with USA in it (before Trump) than the alternative but here we are with a convicted felon who went bankrupt 6 times going for his 7th.

      • tenpercent on 09/04/2025 - 12:14
        +1

        There hasn't been a US president who wasn't shady and or demented during my lifetime.

      • Penguin30 on 12/04/2025 - 12:09

        US will unfortunately never be left out of contract they are the world's biggest consumers.

        It's not really about number of people it's unfortunately about $$$ and US definitely spends world wide.

        That's the only reason some countries are accepting the tariffs and only the Chinese are pushing back because their trade value is larger than US and have some power to push being the manufacturing giants they are.

        This will all end with all countries coming to an agreement and signing some sort of world trade deal. It's bigger than just old Trump. Hopefully Australia doesn't just sell ourselves out for nothing like usual.

        So many resources just being shipped out the country for pennies.

    • haemolysis on 09/04/2025 - 12:17
      +6

      That is simply not the case. The tariffs are imposed based on trade deficit; they are not reciprocal tariffs.

      • SpainKing on 09/04/2025 - 15:15

        This is correct, the Liberation Day chart was mislabelled (presumably on purpose). They shared the formula for exactly how it was calculated

        • Jolakot on 09/04/2025 - 21:30

          It's hilarious how half the formula cancels itself out, what a farce

    • lonewolf on 09/04/2025 - 20:57
      -1

      This is what i have read as well. Tariffs have been around for a long time, just that some countries do it and others dont and what all the hoopla is about is trying to even it out instead of some countries winning in the trade deals over others. I dont know about australia's trade deals, but in general a lot of times it does seem like we give more concessions in negotiations than we receive from a lot of countries we deal with.

  • haemolysis on 09/04/2025 - 12:15
    +4

    I think tariffs are an effective tool, but they need to be used within a comprehensive plan and not just bludgeoned on the market like a blunt object. Not only would you hope for tariffs to be eased in gradually (nothing like Trump's method which is crashing the global economy), but you also need some local start-up industry ready to actually fill the void once the tariffed manufacturers get kicked out.

    We don't… have… any such industry here ready to take the lead. We got nothing.

    This is why Labor have put forward the Future Made In Australia plan to invest in new emerging green technologies (like Li battery manufacture) in order that we actually start up some industry here to begin with. As usual, only Labor has a plan. The LNP is happy to see Australian manufacturing simply close shop, as it did for instance with Holden under Abbott.

  • jerjergege on 09/04/2025 - 13:21

    I work as an industrial automation engineer, what operators, or new workers want to work in (most of the time) loud / noisy enviroment where you have to wear hearing protection, eye protection, high vis, in non cooled factories / warehouses.

    No one local that's for sure.

  • YodaBaby on 09/04/2025 - 15:35
    +3

    Isn't the 10% GST on all overseas online products purchases a "tariff" already?

    • maraco on 09/04/2025 - 16:15

      no

    • Speckled Jim on 09/04/2025 - 21:50

      Yes.

    • Wort on 11/04/2025 - 01:35
      +1

      No, It's a sales tax. A tax on the consumption of discretionary goods purchased by consumers.

      GST is only applied once, at the time of purchase by the 'consumer'.

      If a business purchases something they then use to make another good, any GST paid is refunded. Only the end product has GST applied - this is why business can buy things GST free - saves a step.

      A tariff is applied on any goods crossing the border, regardless if the receiver is the end customer. So a tarriff applies to raw materials used by a buisness to produce an end good.

      In complex supply chains where goods may cross borders multiple times, tariffs will be charged each time.

    • Penguin30 on 14/04/2025 - 17:42

      Yes, but it's not labelled as one.

      Tarrrif, GST whatever you need to call it at the end of the day it all falls under one word TAX.

      In which we pay too much already.

  • justworld on 09/04/2025 - 15:42
    +1

    I'd rather keep the status quo than force protectionist policies that drive up the price of goods to sustain unsustainable industries.

    Lmao that the OP thinks this could lead to a 'decrease in income tax'. The top bracket has been indexed only $10k in 18 years - taxes have thus effectively increased for anyone in the top bracket. Nothing is going to lead to a decrease in income tax - definitely not tariffs that just make our economy less efficient.

    If your private sector job isn't effective on the open market, it's not society's job to subsidise you. It's infinitely cheaper to pay people $25k a year in Newstart than it is to pay protection money to keep their industry afloat.

  • maraco on 09/04/2025 - 16:14
    +2

    What unemployment problem? We have very low unemployment rates.

    Do you mean the low workforce participation rate problem?

    The solution is to incentive people to work with lower welfare hand outs and lower taxation. No government is interested in those measures.

  • Nads2407 on 09/04/2025 - 17:13
    +1

    are you going to be the one to work in that factory for $1 and hour?

    • lonewolf on 09/04/2025 - 20:59
      -2

      I saw some of that video this morning, it was definitely very interesting and it backed up what i had already read elsewhere about the tariffs, you are right there is definitely a lot of scaremongering with the word tariff at the moment, mainly by the media it seems.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2025 - 07:22
        -2

        Yeah, the media was/is overdoing it.

        Sadly, it seems like Trump already folded as he reduced tariffs for non-retaliating countries down to 10% for the next 90 days. If he is open to doing that, I believe he will generally be open to rolling exemptions which I don't believe will bode well for his plans for making America great again.

        • 1st-Amendment on 10/04/2025 - 11:56
          -2

          Trump already folded as he reduced tariffs for non-retaliating countries down to 10% for the next 90 days

          Folded? It's the strategy.
          I mean he literally spelled this tactic out in his book nearly 40 years ago. I'm surprised that so many people still don't get it. Always start with a terrible offer, then come up. This is deal making 101. It's not even his idea, it's been known for thousands of years.

          I believe he will generally be open to rolling exemptions

          Of course, that is the plan. Again why is this so confusing? Hit your opponents hard, then make them beg for deal. It's in his book, it's not magic.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2025 - 07:09

      Well… That triggering event has come.

      I know I am going to get a lot of hate from the MAGA crowd, but you have to admit that Trump folded.

      Reshipment of goods will now take place across various Asian countries. China is not going to be paying 125% tariffs…

      I did not expect this sudden move to happen so early, as I was insured until the monthly options expiry date.

      Let me know if you want to know if you want some explanation of the full strategy as I will open another thread in the Financial section as this is supposed to be focused on the Employment issues in Australia, but basically I lose money if there is no volatility. I did overpay for the protection though.

      Preparing myself for Asian session trading today.

      • May4th on 10/04/2025 - 09:11
        +4

        he was read the riot act by big donors. of course he will say it was the plan all along and MAGA crowd will lap it up and tout how much of a genius move it is. they can't have it both ways. he either made a blunder and folded under pressure OR it was the plan all along for insider trading to make money for him and his mates, pick one

      • 1st-Amendment on 10/04/2025 - 12:01
        -4

        from the MAGA crowd,

        There is no 'MAGA crowd' This is version of reality you have swallowed from the media. Stop falling for that…

        but you have to admit that Trump folded.

        Playing out his commonly used tactic that he wrote a book about is not what I'd consider 'folding', it's all part of the play. He literally tells you how this works in the book. You should read it sometime.

        Let me know if you want to know if you want some explanation of the full strategy

        You have no grasp of basic negotiation tactics, why would I trust any 'strategy' you claim to have?

        • May4th on 10/04/2025 - 12:31

          you're replying to the wrong person but it's cute how much faith in have in old mate Don

          well that didn't take long, so much for strategy or any semblance of a plan - trump himself said it was reactionary rather than pre-planned
          https://archive.is/uPvLu

          • 1st-Amendment on 10/04/2025 - 14:02
            -2

            @May4th:

            you're replying to the wrong person

            What a reading fail… the comedy show rolls on.

            trump himself said

            SMH lol. Imagine how much different the world would appear to you if you didn't swallow media lies all day…

            • May4th on 10/04/2025 - 14:30

              @1st-Amendment: I guess you didn't read the article, it was a direct quote from Trump. but I suppose you get all your news from Sky and Fox

              • 1st-Amendment on 11/04/2025 - 11:21

                @May4th:

                I guess you didn't read the article,

                One of us didn't. That is obvious.

                it was a direct quote from Trump

                What was? This 'direct quote' that you couldn't quote because it doesn't actually exist.

                Let's use you as a case study for how easily weak minds are manipulated by the media.

                Your take: 'trump himself said it was reactionary rather than pre-planned'

                Also you: "it was a direct quote from Trump"

                Here's all the Trump quotes from the article:

                “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting a little yippy, a little bit afraid,” he said.

                “The bond market is very tricky. I was watching it. But if you look at it now, it’s beautiful, the bond market right now. But I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy.”

                “I’m telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are. They’re dying to make a deal,” he told a Republican Party dinner in Washington this week.

                Countries were lining up to “kiss my ass,” he said.

                “Please, sir, make a deal,” he said, mockingly.

                “I’ll do anything, I’ll do anything, sir.”

                So, which one of those did you mistakenly believe said "it was reactionary rather than pre-planned"

                but I suppose you get all your news from Sky and Fox

                The funny part is that you can see the manipulation when the other team are doing it, but it never occurred to you that you are getting fooled by the same trick.

                Wake up mate, you're being played.

    • serpserpserp on 10/04/2025 - 07:40

      How are your short positions looking this morning? I'm sure because you see everything coming, you closed them all out yesterday morning..

      • May4th on 10/04/2025 - 09:13
        +4

        there's so much insider trading going on. one trade with options expiring today made 2000% profit. and the poor think Trump is their president

    • p3nf0ld on 10/04/2025 - 14:44

      There is no understanding the Trump camp unless you failed primary school mathematics.
      He literally held up a sign with the 1st column stating "Tariffs charged to the USA" and the 2nd column "USA Discounted Reciprocal Tariffs"
      The 2nd column was a "discount" because they divided the 1st column by 2, unless the number was smaller in which case they made it 10%
      The maths was: U/S Trade Deficit with Country / Country's exports to US in %.
      Now Australia has a trade surplus with the US, meaning we buy more from them than they buy from us.
      Technically they should be paying the U.S. importer to bring in goods from Australia with this formula. LOL. But they just said 10%.

      Anyway, this is is the President that was elected by the US people. Cringe.

      • shroomish on 10/04/2025 - 14:50

        But they put it through Grok and had them convert it to greek letters for the WOW MATHS! effect .

        The real gold is in the Wankersphere justifying crashing the economy because he's playing 5D chess.

  • gromit on 09/04/2025 - 21:42
    +2

    Absolutely it could fix our unemployment problem, heavy tariffs could quickly see us at 10% or higher unemployment as opposed to the current full employment. History is replete with examples of how bad these sort of idiotic tariffs are.

    Future manufacturing will be almost entirely dark factories, manufacturing will not bring back jobs, not that we have a jobs problem anyway.

  • Domingo on 09/04/2025 - 22:00
    +2

    A tariff on bolding text in comments would go a long way to restoring the average OzBargain user's sanity

    • tenpercent on 10/04/2025 - 12:08
      +2

      Oh no a 50% Tariff has been applied.

  • Baysew on 09/04/2025 - 22:10
    +2

    What if Australia decided to implement tariffs on imported goods?

    When you say Australia, do mean the elected Government of the day. Difficult to see a government staying in power or opposition hoping to get elected on the basis of introducing tariffs. A scary BIG NEW TAX is not really a vote winner. OzBargain has never forgiven Gerry Harvey in his part of the GST on under $1K goods and services.

    Trump is just waiting to retaliate on reciprocal tariffs.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/04/2025 - 07:17
      -1

      I would be referring to the Australian people as well because they ultimately determine who is in power during the successive terms. I mentioned in another comment elsewhere in the thread, how the Coalition with its decade of rule from 2013-2022 still did not manage to do anything useful. Maybe that also comes down to whether democracy is broken or not, or that the length that the government serves for is too short.

      However, it looks like Trump might not even be implementing MAGA anymore because he folded overnight.

      The GST is basically a tariff against other countries though. It wasn't really enforced until Gerry Harvey came along. Even iHerb was forced into collecting GST…

      • jackspratt on 10/04/2025 - 12:53
        +1

        The GST is basically a tariff against other countries though. It wasn't really enforced until Gerry Harvey came along. Even iHerb was forced into collecting GST…

        You seem to have a poor understanding of GST.

        With the exception of small value, mainly personal transactions, and GST exempt goods, it has been applied to ALL imports since it was introduced in 2000. Gerry Harvey has nothing to do with it.

        • haemolysis on 10/04/2025 - 13:46
          -1

          It is still basically a tariff. I do understand there are some semantics differences, but at the end of the day, consumption taxes are taxes levied on imported goods at the border, so it's tomayto tomahto. The Trump government has made clear they view it that way - perhaps not about GST, but they've mentioned VAT in Europe.

          • May4th on 10/04/2025 - 13:57

            @haemolysis: Well the only difference in tax vs tariff lies in semantics, so not sure what the argument is there. tariffs by definition are applied to imports, so GST is much broader than that.

            I think we've established by now that how Trump views something is not the gospel of truth..

          • tenpercent on 10/04/2025 - 13:59
            +1

            @haemolysis: The consumption tax is levied on Australian made goods consumed here too. It's not like it's only levied on imports.

            • haemolysis on 10/04/2025 - 16:03
              -1

              @tenpercent: That may be true but is not really relevant. Just because the tax is equal for domestic goods does not mean "therefore there effectively is no tax" lol. The price of the good is 10% higher, and the government collects revenue from that.

              • tenpercent on 10/04/2025 - 16:05

                @haemolysis: But it means it's quite different to a tariff. Gromit has also explained this to you.

                • haemolysis on 10/04/2025 - 16:08
                  -1

                  @tenpercent: My mistake, you guys are absolutely correct. A 10% tax at the port of delivery is totally different to a 10% tax at the supermarket counter.

                  Don't worry, I'll call the president to explain. We can fix this.

          • jackspratt on 10/04/2025 - 14:05

            @haemolysis: Not necessarily.

            Unless they are the final consumer, importers can claim an input tax credit against the import GST, and effectively pass the tax liability along the production/sales chain, until it reaches the final consumer.

          • gromit on 10/04/2025 - 14:18
            +1

            @haemolysis: a Tariff is a discriminatory tax levied exclusively on imports. GST is a effectively a sales tax levied against all goods and services (with some specific exceptions) regardless of whether they are imports or locally produced goods. In the US they have a GST too, it is called sales tax. Only the end consumer is liable for the GST (just like a sales tax), any GST charged before that is refundable/credited.

      • gromit on 10/04/2025 - 13:34
        +1

        He folded as some actual intelligent people were screaming in his ears trying to warn him of the pending economic disaster he was creating, The Bond market had entered seriously damaging territory. Still probably too late to reverse the damage the MAGA morons have created now.

  • nikey2k27 on 10/04/2025 - 06:11

    NO look into colour tv in Aus they kill it for customer

  • serpserpserp on 10/04/2025 - 07:36
    +1

    We don't have an unemployment problem. We have one of the highest employment rates in the world.

    • 1st-Amendment on 10/04/2025 - 12:06

      Well said.
      Kids these days have never experienced what a real unemployment problem is. Try living in 10%+ unemployment when there are simply not enough jobs and your family goes hungry.
      Our problem is that life is so good that everyone gets to choose which job they take.

      • dufflover on 10/04/2025 - 16:04

        Our problem is that life is so good that everyone gets to choose which job they take.

        The problem is demonstrated a little bit in the past when you have unemployed people on welfare benefits while at the same time farmers struggled to pick all the food that said people eat.
        Not that I expect the government to ever touch those policies.

        Not going to go anywhere near the usual Trump/MAGA/Libs stuff this whole topic was otherwise clearly trying to bait

    • tenpercent on 10/04/2025 - 13:59

      Isn't that a problem though?

      • serpserpserp on 10/04/2025 - 15:20

        I'm sure you are going to tell me something really enlightening here that is going to explain how c. 4% unemployment rate is bad.

        • tenpercent on 10/04/2025 - 15:44

          If you're actually interested why a low unemployment rate can be bad and why no one targets 0% unemployment (i.e. politicians and the Reserve Bank WANT some people unemployed - this is also an argument for unemployment benefits being high enough to be sufficient to live on)…

          https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/nairu.…

          A low unemployment rate can be detrimental to the economy in several ways. Firstly, it can lead to a shrinking pool of candidates for open positions, making it harder for businesses to find suitable employees.

          Secondly, when the labour market becomes too tight, it can result in inflation as employers may offer higher wages to attract workers, increasing the cost of goods and services.

          Lastly, if the unemployment rate drops too low, it can lead to reduced productivity because each additional job added does not create enough productivity to cover its cost, causing an output gap or slack in the economy.

          In some cases, a low unemployment rate might also indicate that people are moving out of the labour force rather than finding employment, which can skew the unemployment figures and mask underlying economic issues.

          • serpserpserp on 10/04/2025 - 21:09
            -2

            @tenpercent: Yes I know economics 101, but you still haven't said why c. 4% is bad.

          • 1st-Amendment on 11/04/2025 - 13:25
            +1

            @tenpercent:

            why no one targets 0% unemployment

            No-one said that. Classic straw man.

            The poster said we have an unemployment problem, OP said we don't have an unemployment problem. Do you agree or disagree?

  • AnotherRedLight on 10/04/2025 - 12:17
    +1

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaand Trump Told his billionaire mates a few hours before he did it that he was going to pause tariffs.

    The Billionaires just made a few hundred more billion from Insider trading from the President…. you can't make this stuff up.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join