Nintendo sues the US government over "unlawful" Trump-era tariffs

[ScottSoapbox]

"The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs last month, ruling that the president had overstepped his authority." more like they were bought and paid for. Tariffs have been used in the past (although not at the same level as today) because of the trade imbalance with other countries. Any economist worth his penny knows this stuff. Nothing new here.

Tariffs have been used in the past but they were created following the law.

Tariffs protect domestic businesses (that donate to politicians) they do not help domestic consumers.

Trade imbalance is silly thing to convince the masses that protectionism is good and patriotic and not selling out to big business. Economists that aren't employed by the government will tell you the same.

Think about it: you are concerned that another country is giving us real more stuff in exchange for our devaluing paper money. Oh no! Don't sell me your labor intensive products in exchange for my cushy office time money.

You have a "trade imbalance" with every store you shop at. You should really demand your grocery store or Amazon buy products from you or it isn't "fair".

 

[Endymio]

Think about it: you are concerned that another country is giving us real more stuff in exchange for our devaluing paper money. Oh no! Don't sell me your labor intensive products in exchange for my cushy office time money.

You have a "trade imbalance" with every store you shop at.

I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that at all. A trade imbalance indicates a country is consuming more than it produces. Foreign nations don't "give us" that excess, they use it to buy things here -- they're just not buying US goods and services, but land and other real estate, US companies (either directly, or via stock), US Treasury bonds, etc.

All trade imbalances are exactly balanced -- if a foreign nation sells the US $1 more in trade than we sell them, that dollar is used to buy a piece of America. Ultimately, trade deficits are not long-term sustainable. Already, foreign firms own nearly $10 trillion in US debt (for which we pay them hundreds of billions of dollars each year in interest). Foreign nations own about 40% of all US corporate equity, and more than 40 million acres of US land. Every year the US runs a net trade deficit, these figures all rise.

As much as you may feel you need a new Chinese-made smartphone every year or two, the trade balance that causes has real-world negative effects. Nations with trade surpluses grow stronger; those with deficits weaken.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that at all. A trade imbalance indicates a country is consuming more than it produces. Foreign nations don't "give us" that excess, they use it to buy things here -- they're just not buying US goods and services, but land and other real estate, US companies (either directly, or via stock), US Treasury bonds, etc.

All trade imbalances are exactly balanced -- if a foreign nation sells the US $1 more in trade than we sell them, that dollar is used to buy a piece of America. Ultimately, trade deficits are not long-term sustainable. Already, foreign firms own nearly $10 trillion in US debt (for which we pay them hundreds of billions of dollars each year in interest). Foreign nations own about 40% of all US corporate equity, and more than 40 million acres of US land. Every year the US runs a net trade deficit, these figures all rise.

As much as you may feel you need a new Chinese-made smartphone every year or two, the trade balance that causes has real-world negative effects. Nations with trade surpluses grow stronger; those with deficits weaken.

You are conflating China buying US government debt with a trade imbalance. China can do that regardless of any trade ratio you want to create.

That is problem of US government overspending not who owns the debt. If it wasn't risky debt it wouldn't matter.

China buying real estate is also another issue. I would agree with laws to limit foreign ownership. But again nothing to do with trade imbalances.

You are just buying the propaganda that the trade imbalance (China) is the problem not all of the things we are doing to ourselves and our currency.

 

[Endymio]

You are conflating China buying US government debt with a trade imbalance. China can do that regardless of any trade ratio you want to create.

Basic macroeconomics. US bonds aren't sold in yuan, they're sold in dollars. The CCP doesn't print US dollars -- it can only get them by selling something to the US. If China sells $1T in goods to the US, then buys $1T in US goods in exchange (I.e. a zero net trade balance), then it has no dollars left over with which to purchase US debt. Or to purchase US land, US companies, nor anything else.

The books must always balance. Trade imbalances create currency surpluses on one side, deficits on the other. When China uses its US currency surplus to purchase US land, debt, and corporations, their ownership in the US increases. If and when there's no longer anything left they wish to purchase, that surplus starts rising, causing a rapid depreciation of the dollar vs. the yuan, which not only raises consumer prices as much as tariffs, but continues unabated until the trade imbalance vanishes.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Better yet, we need a third political party where the sane adults can get sh*t done while the children bicker on either side.

Impossible in our current election system, which is designed for 2 parties. Sane moderate candidates nowadays dont survive party primaries.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

. -- again countering claims of higher prices -- inflation was half of what it averaged over Biden's last three months in office.

What? Inflation during the last year of Biden was around 2.7% (the last few months arounf 2.4%-2.9%).

Inflation in 2025 under Trump was about the same, and ranged from 2.3% to 3% per month.

There is no world where inflation was cut in half...it barely changed.

And higher are a reality. That is how inflation works. It didnt go up as much as people thought it would but it still went up. We did not have deflation or 0 inflation here.

 

[Endymio]

What? Inflation during the last year of Biden was around 2.7% (the last few months arounf 2.4%-2.9%).

No. Annualized inflation over Biden's last three months in office was 4.8% (see link below). Inflation over the last 12 months of Trump was 2.4%. Exactly half.

Biden took inflation from 0.9% to 9.1% ... aggressive Fed action reduced it, but it had again begun rising sharply during Biden's last months in office:

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/economicdata/cpi_02122025.pdf

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Basic macroeconomics. US bonds aren't sold in yuan, they're sold in dollars. The CCP doesn't print US dollars -- it can only get them by selling something to the US. If China sells $1T in goods to the US, then buys $1T in US goods in exchange (I.e. a zero net trade balance), then it has no dollars left over with which to purchase US debt. Or to purchase US land, US companies, nor anything else.

The books must always balance. Trade imbalances create currency surpluses on one side, deficits on the other.

Basic macroeconomics also says trade imbalance is from insufficient national savings (private and govt savings) to finance national spending/investment. Ultimately it is a savings vs spending problem for both the govt and individual consumers.

Money is fungible, and you can trade currency. Private Chinese companies and Chinese billionaires are the ones investing in US companies. Even if they had a 1 to 1 trade ratio with the US, there are resources from other sectors of their economy they can pull from to invest in the US companies.
The US as a whole has a deficit but it (govt and private) still invests a lot in foreign companies, purchases foreign properties, etc

That said, having a surplus is not the end all be all goal. Japan had a currency surplus for decades and their economy stagnated and their living standards decreased. The US has run a trade deficit every year since the 1970s and its economy has grown almost every year.

Finslly, let's not forget the Feds print money and manipulate the US money supply in ways favorable to the US. IIRC, I read Trump was planning to reduce the national debt ratio by printing more money and encouraging inflation...which might work if the economy grows faster than the debt. Everybody is playing by US rules here.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

No. Annualized inflation over Biden's last three months in office was 4.8% (see link below). Inflation over the last 12 months of Trump was 2.4%. Exactly half.

Biden took inflation from 0.9% to 9.1% ... aggressive Fed action reduced it, but it had again begun rising sharply during Biden's last months in office:

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/economicdata/cpi_02122025.pdf

You're not comparing apples to apples here, and your link focuses on urban inflation (CPI-U), not inflation for the overall economy.

Compare inflation by year to year, or compare it by month to month. Don't compare one president's yearly inflation rate with another president's month by month inflation. And don't compare overall inflation with CPI for urban consumers...those are completely different calculations with different metrics.

The annual overall inflation rate according to USinflation calc in 2020 was 1.4%, 2021 was 7%, 2022 was 6.5%, 2023 was 3.4%, 2024 was 2.9% and 2025 was 2.7%. The difference between Biden in 2024 and Trump in 2025 is 0.2%.

Or if we go by Minneapolis Fed, the overall inflation from 2020 to 2025 was: 1.2%, 4.7%, 8%, 4.1%, 2.9%, and 2.6%. So Biden in 2024 2.9% to Trump in 2025 2.6% is 0.3%.

Current U.S. Inflation Rates: 2000-2026

The annual inflation rate in the United States was 4.2% for the 12 months ending May, up from 3.8% previously, according to U.S. Labor Department data released June 10, 2026. The next update is scheduled for July 14 at 8:30 a.m. ET and will cover the 12 months ending June. Below is a chart and

www.usinflationcalculator.com

Consumer Price Index, 1800- | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Historic data including estimates before the modern U.S. consumer price index (CPI)

www.minneapolisfed.org

Both charts show the annual rate of inflation decreased by around 0.2-0.3% going from Biden in 2024 to Trump in 2025. None of these charts show inflation was cut in half as you claim.


And Inflation spiked to 7-8% thanks to Trump and BIden's giant 5 trillion COVID stimulus, the COVID worldwide lockdowns that reduced trade and productivity, and Trump and Biden's near 0% interest rates that encouraged people borrowing trillions in cheap loans (lowered to very low before COVID and lowered again during COVID).

Trump should be thankful that he lost in 2020 because he got off completely blame free for inflation and was able to pin inflation entirely on Biden even though they had similar contributing economic policies.

 

[Endymio]

Basic macroeconomics also says trade imbalance is from insufficient national savings (private and govt savings) to finance national spending/investment.

What you're saying is that trade imbalances are caused by spending more than we produce. Which is what I stated. Re: only capital investment, when domestic savings are less than the amount spent, that shortfall must be foreign by definition ... but those foreign sources of US dollars only exist because of a trade imbalance.

Money is fungible, and you can trade currency.

I'm unsure you understand how currency trading markets work. Every trader is attempting to gauge supply vs. demand for a nation's currency. The supply isn't simply how much a nation's goods and services are wanted, but **all** spending: including land, stocks, debt bonds, etc.

Private Chinese companies and Chinese billionaires are the ones investing in US companies. Even if they had a 1 to 1 trade ratio with the US, there are resources from other sectors of their economy they can pull from to invest in the US companies.

Again: the books must always balance. They can only invest in US companies with US dollars. From where do you think those dollars are derived?

The US has run a trade deficit every year since the 1970s and its economy has grown almost every year.

And every year the US manufacturing base declined. Every year foreign nations own a larger share of US companies, US land, and US assets. Every year China's economy gains in strength compared to the US. Trade imbalances have real world effects.

Compare inflation by year or compare it by month. Don't compare one president's yearly inflation with another president's monthly inflation.

OK, let's compare by month. Inflation during Biden's last month was 0.5% -- which annualizes to a full 6.0% -- even worse than the 3-month average I quoted. Inflation during Trump's last month was 0.2% -- 2.4%.

And don't compare overall inflation with CPI for urban consumers...those are completely different calculations with different metrics.

Using the CPI, the CPI-U, or the PPI (producer price index), the figures are all much worse for Biden than for Trump. Facts matter.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I'm unsure you understand how the currency trading markets work. Every trader is desperately attempting to gauge supply vs. demand for a nation's currency. The supply isn't simply how much others want a nation's goods and services, but **all** spending: including purchases of land, stocks, debt bonds, etc.

Again: the books must always balance. They can only invest in US companies with US dollars. From where do you think those dollars are derived?

And every year the US manufacturing base has declined. Every year foreign nations own a larger share of US companies, US land, and US hard assets. Every year China's economy gains in strength compared to the US. Trade imbalances have real world effects.

Did you forget how the US Feds literally prints dollars out of thin air? Trump and Biden printed 5+ trillion for COVID stimulus. Somewhere around 20% of all US dollars every created was printed during the COVID. The US dollar is the world's currency for trade and reserve currency - everybody is literally forced to buy US dollars.

You talk about balancing books but neglect the part where our government creates money out of thin air and the system encourages everybody to buy our printed money...to our benefit. Inflation makes our national debt worth less, so we are good as long as our economic growth exceeds inflation (real GDP growth). That's partially how the plans for growing the economy faster than growing the debt works.

US manufacturing declined while US tech sector, services, and intellectual property skyrocketed and now controls much of the world. The US also owns Chinese assets and many US companies have profitable ventures in China. The US is a post manufacturing economy and is now a service and tech/IP based economy. China itself is also trying to offload manufacturing to poorer countries and increase its service and tech/IP sectors.

China's economy would have grown fast with or without the trade imbalance. All developing nations grow faster than developed nations - this is a historical trend seen everywhere. China's economy will slow down as they become more developed - a trend seen in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.

OK, let's compare by month. Inflation during Biden's last month was 0.5% -- which annualizes to a full 6.0% -- even worse than the 3-month average I quoted. Inflation during Trump's last month was 0.2% -- 2.4%.


Using the CPI, the CPI-U, or the PPI (producer price index), the figures are all much worse for Biden than for Trump. Facts matter.

Nope. Again, try to use apples to apples comparison instead of cherry picking apples to oranges comparisons. You don't pick a monthly inflation rate and then try to add inflation of months from previous years to compare it with a single month of inflation from only one year. That makes no sense.

Inflation in Biden's last full month in office, December 2024 was 2.9%. For Trump, inflation in February 2025 was 2.8%. The lowest monthly inflation in all of 2025 was April with 2.3%, before it went back up to 2.7% and 3% near the end of the year.

Or if we just go by the most sensible comparison of comparing full stand alone years of inflation, Biden's last year in 2024 was around 2.9% inflation while Trump's first year in 2025 was around 2.6-2.7% inflation.

Use the yearly CPI or CPU-U with the same standards here and we will see the same thing I said. The figures for Trump aren't remotely as good as you think when you use the same standards of comparison. Even your previous link doesn't show what you claim if you use apples-to-apples comparisons here.

In an apples to apples comparison where we either compare year to year inflation OR month to month inflation (not cherry picking cumulative multiple year's monthly inflation vs a single month's inflation), Trump absolutely did not cut inflation in half.

Facts matter. Words matter. You claimed Trump in 2025 cut Biden's inflation in half. This claim is completely wrong because inflation went down only 0.2-0.3%.


And again, let's not ignore how Trump and Biden both had similar inflationary policies of 5+ trillion COVID stimulus and near 0% interest rates to encourage trillions in cheap borrowing. Trump should be thankful Biden got elected so Biden could take all the blame for inflation.

 

[Endymio]

You talk about balancing books but neglect the part where our government creates money out of thin air

I didn't neglect it. If China buys $1T from the US (counting goods/services AND hard assets), then it must give us exactly $1T in Chinese goods, services, and assets in exchange. The US printing money can deflate the value of those purchases -- thus affecting demand -- but it does not change the fact that the books still must balance.

US manufacturing declined while US tech sector, services, and intellectual property skyrocketed and now controls much of the world.

China has stolen or reverse-engineered nearly all that IP. The few areas it hasn't (such as semi design) it's using the money it gains from their trade imbalance with us to finance the rest.

As for "services", what happens when a nation that manufactures metals, chemicals, explosives, rare earths, and semiconductors goes to war with one that produces "services"? You do realize why the US won WW2? (hint: we didn't do it by selling services to the Axis)

China's economy would have grown fast with or without the trade imbalance

Not nearly as fast. China's trade imbalance gave it trillions of dollars to invest not only in subsidizing its own corporations, but also in purchasing US firms -- most of which it immediately looted of their IP, transferring it to Chinese-owned firms.

Inflation in Biden's last full month in office, December 2024 was 2.9%.

Learn math. You're not quoting inflation FOR his last month; you're counting average inflation over the 12 month period before. When prices rise 0.5% in one month, that annualizes to 6% per year.

And again, let's not ignore how Trump and Biden both had similar inflationary policies

Trump's spending was for one year, when the entire country was shut down for Covid and the economy contracting at record pace. But by Dec 2024, the economy was growing at the fastest rate in history. By mid-2021, the entire country was fully reopen -- yet Biden continued spending like a drunken sailor for years.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I didn't neglect it. If China buys $1T from the US (counting goods/services AND hard assets), then it must give us exactly $1T in Chinese goods, services, and assets in exchange. The US printing money can deflate the value of those purchases -- thus affecting demand -- but it does not change the fact that the books still must balance.

So according to this logic, every country that has a trade deficit with the US should treat it as a bad thing? Every country needs a net zero trade surplus/deficit with every other country?
I'm pretty sure basic macreconomics frowns upon that. Who writes and balances the books? The US Feds.

China has stolen or reverse-engineered nearly all that IP. The few areas it hasn't (such as semi design) it's using the money it gains from their trade imbalance with us to finance the rest.

So is your problem the fact that the US has a trade deficit or that China steals IP? Those are two very different issues. If China didn't steal IP and paid for US tech, would you be totally fine with the trade deficit? China's theft of IP is absolutely a problem. However, a trade deficit is not automatically always a negative thing like you imply.

As for "services", what happens when a nation that manufactures metals, chemicals, explosives, rare earths, and semiconductors goes to war with one that produces "services"? You do realize, don't you, why the US won WW2? (hint: we didn't do it by selling services to the Axis powers)

You do realize the US stopping the manufacturing sneakers, simpler tech, and basic household goods does not mean it can't produce anything? The USA still has plenty of manufacturing for advanced tech and for war production.

Even China is offloading some of its own manufacturing to cheaper SE Asian countries too. In fact, the Chinese economic plan is to follow the USA and also increase the share of services and domestic consumption in its own economy. Did you know that?

This is what all industrializing nations try to do.

Learn math. You're not quoting inflation FOR his last month; you're counting average inflation over the 12 month period before.

Learn how to read AND not cherry pick figures. I gave you two sets of perfectly good numbers that you can use - no need to use creative accounting to come up with new fudged numbers.

One set of numbers was inflation per month that compared months of inflation under Biden and Trump.

The other set of numbers was inflation for the entire year for 2024 under Biden and 2025 under Trump. It was 2.9% for the entire year in 2024 under Biden and 2.6% for the entire year in 2025 under Trump.

Consumer Price Index, 1800- | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

Historic data including estimates before the modern U.S. consumer price index (CPI)

www.minneapolisfed.org

No need to make up new numbers.

When prices rise 0.5% in one month, that annualizes to 6% per year.

Why do you cherry pick numbers and make far fetched assumptions like that? You take one month and then assume every single month has the same exact rate of inflation? Inflation doesn't work like that - it goes up and down from one month to another. Why don't you just look at the real data of what the inflation rate actually was and look at the last year and last months of inflation without making unnecessary assumptions?

Hypothetically if prices went up 1% temporarily in March 2026 because of Iranian oil shock, I can use your logic to claim the entire year annualized inflation would be 12% (even if actual yearly inflation turns out to be 4% because inflation can go up and down).

Trump's spending was for one year, when the entire country was shut down for Covid and the economy contracting at record pace. But by Dec 2024, the economy was growing at the fastest rate in history. By mid-2021, the entire country was fully reopen -- yet Biden continued spending like a drunken sailor for years.

Trump's spent like a drunken sailor for 1 year because he lost the election in 2020, which gave opportunity to Biden to start spending like a drunken sailor in his stead for 2021. Did you forget how McConnel tried to prevent Trump from issuing another round of stimulus checks?

The deficits in 2020 was 3.1 trillion, the deficit in 2021 was 2.7 trillion, the deficit in 2022 was 1.4 trillion, 1.6 trillion in 2023, and 1.8 trillion in 2024.

And Trump loves left wing big spending policies - because the deficit in 2025 is estimated to be about 1.8 trillion - the same as Biden's last year in office! Let's not forget how Trump's first years in office back in 2016 actually almost doubled the deficits compared to Obama's last years.

Trump loves spending like a drunken sailor like a big govt Democrat.

 

[Endymio]

So according to this logic, every country that has a trade deficit with the US should treat it as a bad thing?

With one single country? No, of course not. But if a nation carries a monstrous trade deficit against the entire world for decade after decade, it carries severe negative effects.

So is your problem the fact that the US has a trade deficit or that China steals IP?

Both. Next question?

The USA still has plenty of manufacturing for advanced tech and for war production.

No it doesn't. China is - by design - maneuvering for control of every world industry critical to defense manufacturing, from metal and rare earths on up. It already claims Taiwan as its own -- source of 90% of the world'd most advanced microchips.

Even China is offloading some of its own manufacturing to cheaper SE Asian countries too. In fact, the Chinese economic plan is to follow the USA and also increase the share of services and domestic consumption in its own economy. Did you know that?

You misunderstand China+1 and MIC2025:

...China's State Council issued Made in China 2025 (MIC2025)—a broad set of industry plans [to] boost China's position in the global manufacturing value chain, "leapfrogging" into emerging technologies, and reducing reliance on foreign firms...MIC2025 stresses "indigenous" innovation, a process that involves the acquisition, absorption, and adaptation of foreign technology by PRC entities, which may later recast these capabilities as their own...These plans aim to make China the leader in all parts of the global value chain, and to increase the share of inputs and finished goods produced in China and worldwide by PRC firms..."

China+1 involves diversifying certain PRC-owned manufacturing -- primarily textiles, furniture, and consumer electronics -- into at least one other nation (the +1). The critical point here is that the foreign nation provides the cheap labor (and allows China to skirt US and other import tariffs) but the PRC still owns and operates the businesses.

The other set of numbers was inflation for the entire year for 2024 under Biden and 2025 under Trump. It was 2.9% for the entire year in 2024 under Biden and 2.6% for the entire year in 2025 under Trump.

LOL, you removed Biden's horrific last month (Jan 2025) off his total -- drastically improving his 12 month average -- and counted it against Trump ... and Trump still beat Biden. Are you literally trying to embarrass yourself with this stuff?

The facts remain. Trump quickly reduced Bidenflation, and it continues to drop today.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

With one single country? No, of course not. But if a nation carries a monstrous trade deficit against the entire world for decade after decade, it carries severe negative effects.

The trade deficit is really only an issue because the US has an overall annual deficit and the debt is growing too fast compared to gdp.
If the US only traded with 1 poor country in the entire world and that poor country provides nothing but raw minerals for computers while the US makes finished finished computers, the US would forever have a negative trade imbalance with that country. That doesn't mean it's bad as long as the overall effect is it helps the US economy generate even more wealth through internal consumption of computers.

No it doesn't. China is - by design - maneuvering for control of every world industry critical to defense manufacturing, from metal and rare earths on up. It already claims Taiwan as its own -- source of 90% of the world'd most advanced microchips.

Taiwanese newspapers made the claim that Taiwan products 90% of the most advanced microchips. Whether that is actually true or not is not verified. Mainland China can claim whatever it wants. That doesn't change the fact Taiwan is a separately run country and has a defense agreement with the US.

You misunderstand China+1 and MIC2025:

...China's State Council issued Made in China 2025 (MIC2025)—a broad set of industry plans [to] boost China's position in the global manufacturing value chain, "leapfrogging" into emerging technologies, and reducing reliance on foreign firms...MIC2025 stresses "indigenous" innovation, a process that involves the acquisition, absorption, and adaptation of foreign technology by PRC entities, which may later recast these capabilities as their own...These plans aim to make China the leader in all parts of the global value chain, and to increase the share of inputs and finished goods produced in China and worldwide by PRC firms..."

China+1 involves diversifying certain PRC-owned manufacturing -- primarily textiles, furniture, and consumer electronics -- into at least one other nation (the +1).

And you misunderstand the Chinese State Council's 2025-2026 Special Action Plan. China diversifying into other products does not contradict their overall goal of boosting domestic consumption and transitioning to rely more on an internal consumption based economy. Even their attempts to produce better products has an end goal of stimulating internal consumption.

"China on Sunday made public a plan on special initiatives to increase consumption, as the world's second-largest economy moves to make domestic demand the main engine and anchor of economic growth. The plan, issued by the General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, aims to vigorously boost consumption, stimulate domestic demand across the board, and increase spending power by raising earnings and reducing financial burdens. It also aims to generate effective demand through high-quality supply, improve the consumption environment to strengthen consumer willingness to spend, and address prominent constraints on consumption.

The plan, organized into eight major sections, adopts a holistic approach by simultaneously addressing factors such as income growth, service consumption quality enhancement, big-ticket consumption upgrading, and consumption environment improvement.The plan aims to promote reasonable wage growth by strengthening employment support in response to economic conditions and improving the minimum wage adjustment mechanisms. China will expand property income channels through measures to stabilize the stock market and develop more bond products suitable for individual investors."

From: "China unveils plan on special initiatives to boost consumption"
-State Council Information office of the People's Republic of China, Xinhua, March 17, 2025

The critical point here is that the foreign nation provides the cheap labor (and allows China to skirt US and other import tariffs) but the PRC still owns and operates the businesses.

You mean like how many products that are sold in China are made/produced by Chinese labor but the companies and much of the profits are owned by American or European companies? (eg. Tesla, McDonalds, Apple, Microsoft, KFC, Nike, Starbucks, P&G, Walmart, Costco, etc)

The goal of those Chinese companies is to generate money for the businesses and wealth for their owners, like any other private company. The majority of the Chinese economy at this point is privately owned rather than state owned enterprises. Chinese labor costs too much so they were switching to cheaper SE Asian labor even before the tariffs happened. The tariffs simply accelerated it.

If you look at Chinese unemployment figures, the Chinese companies outsourcing jobs to other countries is causing instability and high unemployment to the chargin of their government, with youth unemployment reaching a historic peak of around 20% in recent years.

LOL, you removed Biden's horrific last month (Jan 2025) off his total -- drastically improving his 12 month average -- and counted it against Trump ... and Trump still beat Biden. Are you literally trying to embarrass yourself with this stuff?

The facts remain. Trump quickly reduced Bidenflation, and it continues to drop today.

LOL, what month in 2025 was Donald Trump inaugurated again?

How did I count January 2025 against Trump when my month to month numbers above used February 2025's 2.8% inflation as an example of Trump's inflation? You think Biden was still president in Feb. 2025?

And you apparently don't even know what the inflation rate was for January 2025 to claim it was horrific. It was 3%...which is only marginally higher than the previous months. Trump's own inflation rate reached 3% later that year in September 2025.

You gonna blame Trump's "horrific" (your words) 3% inflation rate in September 2025 on Biden too?

I suggest you actually look up the month by month inflation numbers for 2024 and 2025 instead of pulling numbers out of thin air: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

The facts remain that Bidenflation happened thanks to the Trump-Biden COVID stimulus of 2020-2021 and very low interest rates, and then Bidenflation went down in 2023-2024 because the Feds increased interest rates and Congress cracked down on more covid stimulus...this was 2 years before Trump was reelected. Trump had the same left wing big spending policies as Biden.

Or do you think inflation is magically caused by whoever has an R or D next to their name?

 

[Endymio]

If the US only traded with 1 poor country in the entire world and that poor country provides nothing but raw minerals for computers while the US makes finished finished computers, the US would forever have a negative trade imbalance with that country.

LOL, no it doesn't work like this at all. Trade imbalances have nothing to do with the unit value of the products being traded. The US runs both positive and negative trade balances with many extremely poor nations, and the same is true of advanced economies.

Mainland China can claim whatever it wants. That doesn't change the fact Taiwan is a separately run country

Did you see Taiwan compete at the Olympics? No. Do you see Taiwan on the list of nations at the UN? No. Can you find one single airline that flies routes into Taiwan? No again.

Why not? Because China has intimidated the world into either ignoring Taiwan's existence entirely, or if not, to refer to it as "Chinese Taipei" ...a province of China. China has for decades stated that Taiwan announcing formal independence would lead to immediate attack.

And you misunderstand the Chinese State Council's 2025-2026 Special Action Plan. China diversifying into other products does not contradict their overall goal of boosting domestic consumption and transitioning to rely more on an internal consumption based economy.

I literally quoted the CCP's formal position stating the exact opposite, and you wish to pretend otherwise? If you won't believe the PRC itself, perhaps you'll listen to CFR:

"....The Chinese government has launched “Made in China 2025,” a state-led industrial policy that seeks to make China dominant in global high-tech manufacturing. [It] is the government’s ten year plan to rapidly develop ten high-tech industries. Chief among these are electric cars and other new energy vehicles, next-generation information technology (IT) and telecommunications, advanced robotics and artificial intelligence; agricultural technology; aerospace engineering; new synthetic materials; advanced electrical equipment; emerging bio-medicine; high-end rail infrastructure; and high-tech maritime engineering...Beijing’s ultimate goal is to reduce China’s dependence on foreign technology and promote Chinese high-tech manufacturers in the global marketplace...."

You mean like how many products that are sold in China are made/produced by Chinese labor but the companies and much of the profits are owned by American or European companies? (eg. Tesla, McDonalds, Apple, Microsoft, KFC, Nike, Starbucks, P&G, Walmart, Costco, etc)

Only two of those firms are in the manufacturing sector, and the Chinese govt has slowly begun banning the use of iPhones, while Tesla's sales are dropping, as CCP-subsizied EV firms begin to dominate. You think the US will remain a manufacturing powerhouse off KFC and Starbucks sales?

The majority of the Chinese economy at this point is privately owned rather than state owned enterprises.

No firm in China is truly privately owned. From a Stanford University study:

"...Analysis of all 37.5 million registered firms in China reveals that 65% of the largest 1,000 private owners have direct equity ties with state owners...Large private owners also hold significant stakes in smaller firms that themselves invest in other private owners. This results in 3.5 million "indirectly state-connected" private owners, comprising an additional 18% of China's registered capital...The number of private owners with direct equity ties with the state almost tripled between 2000 and 2019..."

Even firms that purport to be truly "privately owned" are still controlled by the CCP. When China's richest man Jack Ma criticized CCP public policy, he immediately vanished from public view, and the government "restructured" his holdings.

And you apparently don't even know what the inflation rate was for January 2025 to claim it was horrific. It was 3%..

Learn Math. Prices rose 0.5% that month, which annualizes to 6%. You seriously don't understand the difference between a one-month value and a 12-month average?

How did I count January 2025 against Trump?

Is this some joke? You linked to a full-year 2025 inflation figure, then literally stated "It was 2.6% in 2025 under Trump." Read your own posts.

 

[Endymio]

Bidenflation happened thanks to the Trump-Biden COVID stimulus of 2020-2021 and very low interest rates.

You're blaming inflation in mid-2022 on Trump, 18 months after he left office, but are also counting Jan 2025 against him , when he'd only been in office a few days?

What's even more absurd is that you admit that government deficit spending drives inflation, yet refuse to credit Trump's efforts to rein in that spending for reducing inflation ... or did you forget we just had the longest government shutdown in US history over the Democrat's (failed) demand we commit to trillions more in new spending?

 

[Bluescreendeath]

You're blaming inflation in mid-2022 on Trump, 18 months after he left office, but are also counting Jan 2025 against him , when he'd only been in office a few days?

What's even more absurd is that you admit that government deficit spending drives inflation, yet refuse to credit Trump's efforts to rein in that spending for reducing inflation ... or did you forget we just had the longest government shutdown in US history over the Democrat's (failed) demand we commit to trillions more in new spending?

No. I'm blaming 2021 inflation on Trump, and 2021-2022 inflation on Biden...because the two literally had the SAME DAMN SPENDING policies of giant COVID stimulus, 0% interest rates, etc. One doesn't magically get a pass because one is R or D. They both had the same stupid policies of easy money, low interest, etc and they both loved those big spending policies.

What's absurd is you haven't bothered to actually look at any of the deficits under Trump's term to make such an absurd claim that he wants to rein in spending.

In 2025, Trump cut peanuts from spending so he could significantly increase DOD spending to over a trillion dollars. Why do you think the 2025 deficit under Trump is basically the SAME as the 2024 deficit under Biden despite Musk's DOGE cutting 50+ billion from the budget and getting rid of the entire USAID? And this with hundreds of billions in additional tax revenue from the Trump tariffs too. Trump actually increased spending!

Trump did nothing to rein in spending in his first term either. Did you forget he nearly DOUBLED Obama's deficits even before COVID happened? Obama's last few years were running deficits around the 500s to 600 billion. Trump increased yearly deficits to around the 900s billion by the end of 2019, which is BEFORE COVID even happened.

And did you forget that Trump wanted even more and bigger stimulus checks, but Republicans led by Mitch McConnel had to rein him in and prevent him from doing that?

"Rein in spending" my rear end - Trump absolutely loves reckless spending because he is a populist. Populists and reckless spending go together. He didn't switch parties 5 times and leave the Republican party twice for no reason.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

LOL, no it doesn't work like this at all. Trade imbalances have nothing to do with the unit value of the products being traded. The US runs both positive and negative trade balances with many extremely poor nations, and the same is true of advanced economies.

Lol, modern economics doesn't work like 18th century mercantilism anymore. You don't need a positive trade balance to continuously grow your economy and improve living standards.
Modern free market capitalism is not a zero sum game.

Did you see Taiwan compete at the Olympics? No. Do you see Taiwan on the list of nations at the UN? No. Can you find one single airline that flies routes into Taiwan? No again. Why not? Because China has intimidated the world into either ignoring Taiwan's existence entirely, or if not, to refer to it as "Chinese Taipei" ...a province of China. China has for decades stated that Taiwan announcing formal independence would lead to immediate attack.

That doesn't mean the Republic of China isn't an independent country. The UN didn't recognize the People's Republic of China before the 1970s either. Do you know the USA doesn't formally acknowledge the Republic of China as a separate nation, but also doesn't acknowledge the ROC belongs to the People's Republic? It's strategic ambiguity, backed by a defense agreement.

Either way, attacking Taiwan in an attempt to take it over would make the point of Taiwan's semiconductors moot...because the tech experts would flee the country and the facilities would be bombed...and it would result in a long dragged out war with the US and possibly other allies in the region that makes the region useless for years.

I literally quoted the CCP's formal position stating the exact opposite, and you wish to pretend otherwise? If you won't believe the PRC itself, perhaps you'll listen to CFR:

"....The Chinese government has launched “Made in China 2025,” a state-led industrial policy that seeks to make China dominant in global high-tech manufacturing. [It] is the government’s ten year plan to rapidly develop ten high-tech industries. Chief among these are electric cars and other new energy vehicles, next-generation information technology (IT) and telecommunications, advanced robotics and artificial intelligence; agricultural technology; aerospace engineering; new synthetic materials; advanced electrical equipment; emerging bio-medicine; high-end rail infrastructure; and high-tech maritime engineering...Beijing’s ultimate goal is to reduce China’s dependence on foreign technology and promote Chinese high-tech manufacturers in the global marketplace...."

I literally quoted the CCP's formal position in their own state newspaper, yet you wish to pretend otherwise?

Xinhua news is a mainland state Chinese newspaper, and they are citing the "State Council Information office" - which is the Chinese government's own mouthpiece office. The Chinese government is literally announcing their plans to boost domestic consumption as they progress to the next level of economic growth.

"The plan, issued by the General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, aims to vigorously boost consumption, stimulate domestic demand across the board, and increase spending power by raising earnings and reducing financial burdens. It also aims to generate effective demand through high-quality supply, improve the consumption environment to strengthen consumer willingness to spend, and address prominent constraints on consumption.

The plan, organized into eight major sections, adopts a holistic approach by simultaneously addressing factors such as income growth, service consumption quality enhancement, big-ticket consumption upgrading, and consumption environment improvement.The plan aims to promote reasonable wage growth by strengthening employment support in response to economic conditions and improving the minimum wage adjustment mechanisms"

Your own post proves my point. Their plan is to drive and stimulate domestic consumption. What the do you think their goal in advancing in microchips is for? It's so they can sell to other countries, sell to their own people, and their own domestic consumers have more money to buy products.

Only two of those firms are in the manufacturing sector, and the Chinese govt has slowly begun banning the use of iPhones, while Tesla's sales are dropping, as CCP-subsizied EV firms begin to dominate. You think the US will remain a manufacturing powerhouse off KFC and Starbucks sales?

The Chinese govt started restricting iphones among their government officials....possibly as a tit for tat over Huawei. This is different from the ban on all Huawei products in the USA.

US sees Huawei payback in China's Apple "ban"

China voiced concern about Apple iPhone security as Huawei rolled out a controversial 5G smartphone.

www.newsweek.com

Is KFC or Starbucks less profitable than manufacturers making Nike shoes, shirts, and lower tech goods in China? Furthermore, the US retains heavy machinery manufacturing and advanced tech manufacturing. It's not like the US has no manufacturing capability.

No firm in China is truly privately owned. From a Stanford University study:

"...Analysis of all 37.5 million registered firms in China reveals that 65% of the largest 1,000 private owners have direct equity ties with state owners...Large private owners also hold significant stakes in smaller firms that themselves invest in other private owners. This results in 3.5 million "indirectly state-connected" private owners, comprising an additional 18% of China's registered capital...The number of private owners with direct equity ties with the state almost tripled between 2000 and 2019..."

Even firms that purport to be truly "privately owned" are still controlled by the CCP. When China's richest man Jack Ma criticized CCP public policy, he immediately vanished from public view, and the government "restructured" his holdings.

That's what happens in an authoritarian monopolistic capitalist/fascist-leaning system where large business is in bed with the government...you cannot criticize the leaders. The main problem is their government pressures large private industry to follow the government line.

Equity ties with the government on the other hand is common everywhere. Oracle, Palantir, OpenAI, Microsoft, Nvidia, Intel, Google, etc all have ties to the US government, including lucrative contracts and even some military defense contracts. Hell, the US government even took over a part of Intel recently.

That said, the Chinese government doesn't control all Chinese businesses, and most Chinese businesses are still operated for profit. That's why so many Chinese businesses have outsourced Chinese jobs overseas - which is in direct contradiction with the Chinese government's plans to reduce unemployment.

Learn Math. Prices rose 0.5% that month, which annualizes to 6%. You seriously don't understand the difference between a one-month value and a 12-month average?

Learn basic common sense of not cherry picking figures and not creating fake bogus numbers.

You seriously don't understand how ridiculous it is to cherry pick a single month's increase in inflation and multiply it to create a fictional number for an entire year's worth of inflation? In what universe has inflation remained the same or increased at the same rate for all 12 months of a year?

And you seriously don't understand how even more ridiculous it is to then compare that fake bogus number you made up to a real number of actual annual inflation?

Like I said above, according to your ridiculous cherry picking logic of creating bogus numbers, if March 2026 inflation increased by 1% to 4.3% (from the current 3.3%) then someone can claim Trump's annualized inflation for the next 12 months would be at least 12%.

Is this some joke? You linked to a full-year 2025 inflation figure, then literally stated "It was 2.6% in 2025 under Trump." Read your own posts.

Is this some kind of joke? You give Trump a pass for the entire year because Biden was president for 2 weeks in January? And even when January inflation was basically similar to the rest of 2025 inflation?

Go look up 2025 inflation per month. You can take out January if you want, but the results for the other 11 months will be basically same because January's inflation was similar to most of the rest of the months.

Again, January 2025 inflation was 3%. February 2025 inflation was 2.8%. Then it went down and went up. Trump's inflation later in September 2025 then increased back to 3%.

The rest of the months it was hovering around 2.4-2.9% per month. Take out January and you still end up with an annualized ~2.6% inflation for 2025 (instead of 2.7%), which is still only a small drop from Biden's 2.9% inflation for 2025.

And guess what, CURRENT February 2026 inflation under Trump was 3.3% a month...which is HIGHER than the "horrific" January 2025 3% inflation that you complained about.

No matter what way you want to spin the numbers, your claims that Trump in 2025 cut Biden's 2024 inflation in half is complete nonsense.

 

[Endymio]

No. I'm blaming 2021 inflation on Trump, and 2021-2022 inflation on Biden

2021 inflation: 4.6%
2022 inflation: 8.0%

Thanks for agreeing.

Trump did nothing to rein in spending in his first term either. Did you forget he nearly DOUBLED Obama's deficits even before COVID happened?

Trump's deficits were small until the Democrats seized control of Congress in 2018 and refused to send him any budget that didn't include massive spending increases. There were multiple government shutdowns those years, remember? All for the same reason -- Democrats demanded more spending, Republicans less:

2017: $0.67T (GOP Congress)
2018: $0.78T (GOP Congress)
2019: $0.98T (Democrat Congress)
2020: 3.313T (Democrat Congress)
2021: $2.78T (Democrat Congress)

Facts matter.

And did you forget that Trump wanted even more and bigger stimulus checks

Why not learn math? The total amount of those personal stimulus checks was only $428 billion...had the Round 2 checks been raised as Trump suggested, it would have only increased by another $98B -- out of the massive $3.3T ($3,300B) in that bill. The vast majority of all "Covid Stimulus" funds wasn't in those stimulus check. Democrats ensured schools got $350B to "help them shut down" ... did you forget all the teachers taking luxury trips to Vegas with Covid relief funds?

 

[Endymio]

Lol, modern economics doesn't work like 18th century mercantilism anymore ...
Modern free market capitalism is not a zero sum game.

Free market capitalism was never a zero sum game. But you can't change basic math. When you spend more than you produce, the deficit has to come from somewhere. The US trade deficit is financed by selling American land and companies to foreign nations, a trillion dollars at a time.

attacking Taiwan in an attempt to take it over would make the point of Taiwan's semiconductors moot...because the tech experts would flee the country and the facilities would be bombed

LOL, what? How do you expect people to flee an island nation when China enacts an air and sea blockade? And both the PRC and ROC have emphatically stated that Taiwan's semiconductor facilities would **not** be targeted in such a case.

I literally quoted the CCP's formal position in their own state newspaper, yet you wish to pretend otherwise?

How in the world do you believe any of what you quoted China's stated policy to dominate and expand their control of world manufacturing? In fact, the two dovetail. China plans to increase domestic consumption and raise wages by vastly increasing the percentage of their workforce involved in high-tech, high value-added manufacturing. They certainly aren't intending to transition from manufacturing into a services-based economy, LOL.

Is KFC or Starbucks less profitable than manufacturers making Nike shoes, shirts, and lower tech goods in China?

Do you believe the US can keep a strong military and fend off foreign attacks with fried chicken wings and Nike sneakers?

Furthermore, the US retains heavy machinery manufacturing and advanced tech manufacturing. It's not like the US has no manufacturing capability.

Do you understand what military weapons are produced from? And where we get them?

"...the U.S. is heavily dependent on foreign, particularly Chinese, sources for critical materials, including 70% of necessary battery cells and a large portion of rare earth elements....The U.S. relies entirely on foreign sources for 12 of 50 critical minerals and over 50% of its needs for another 29...."

The US won WW2 because we expanded military production almost 1,000-fold nearly overnight, by adapting domestic manufacturing. That domestic manufacturing capacity no longer exists in the US .. .but it does in China.No matter what way you want to spin the numbers, your claims that Trump in 2025 cut Biden's 2024 inflation in half is complete nonsense.

 

[Endymio]

You seriously don't understand how ridiculous it is to cherry pick a single month's increase in inflation and multiply it to create a fictional number for an entire year's worth of inflation?

Err, this is basic statistics, friend. That's what "annualizing" a shorter data term means. Annualizing data implies by definition that that rate continued unchanged for a year. This is apparently to everyone but you ... how else would you compare two sets of data with unequal periods?

And yes, one month is too short to draw conclusions from. Eight months is not, however -- Inflation rapidly escalated during Biden's last 8 months in office. His last three months were particularly bad, with an inflation rate double that of Trump's first year in office.

In what universe has inflation remained the same or increased at the same rate for all 12 months of a year?

In what universe does inflation not change over the course of an entire year? That's implicit in the definition of an average. When you tell someone "inflation was 2% last year", anyone of reasonable intelligence understands the rate varied over that year, perhaps dramatically so.

... according to your ridiculous cherry picking logic of creating bogus numbers, if March 2026 inflation increased by 1% to 4.3% (from the current 3.3%) then someone can claim Trump's annualized inflation for the next 12 months would be at least 12%.

LOL, eh? You made at least two middle-school math errors there. I suggest you go back and read what you wrote. Percentages don't work the way you believe you they.

You give Trump a pass for the entire year because Biden was president for 2 weeks in January?

No, I gave Trump a pass for January 2025 only, because Biden was president for 2/3 that month, and Biden-era policies controlled utterly the inflation rate for the remaining 10 days.

 

[trparky]

Trump's deficits were small until the Democrats seized control of Congress in 2018 and refused to send him any budget that didn't include massive spending increases. There were multiple government shutdowns those years, remember? All for the same reason -- Democrats demanded more spending, Republicans less:

2017: $0.67T (GOP Congress)
2018: $0.78T (GOP Congress)
2019: $0.98T (Democrat Congress)
2020: 3.313T (Democrat Congress)
2021: $2.78T (Democrat Congress)

2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

• Passed by Republicans with almost no Democratic votes
• Reduced federal revenue significantly.
• Estimated to add ~$1.7 trillion to deficits over a decade.

The 2020–2021 explosion was overwhelmingly COVID
The huge deficits in 2020 and 2021 were caused by pandemic relief:
Major laws included:

• CARES Act (2020) – ~$2.2T
• Paycheck Protection Program
• stimulus checks
• unemployment expansions
• business aid

These bills were bipartisan and signed by Trump.

As you say... Facts matter.

 

[trparky]

Everyone keeps talking about “facts,” so here are a few.

For decades, Republican economic policy has centered on cutting taxes, especially for corporations and high earners, based on the idea that the benefits will eventually reach everyone else through investment and growth. That’s the supply-side theory people often call “trickle-down economics.”

The problem is that the evidence for those broad benefits is weak. Studies of major tax cuts since the 1980s show they tend to increase deficits and primarily benefit higher-income households, while the promised wage growth for ordinary workers is much harder to find.

And let’s stop pretending the U.S. economy is some pure “free market.” It isn’t. It’s a heavily managed mixed economy full of subsidies, tax incentives, bailouts, and government intervention, especially for industries with political influence.

So when politicians invoke “the free market” to justify policies that mostly reduce taxes at the top, it’s fair to ask: free for whom?

 

[Endymio]

2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

• Estimated to add ~$1.7 trillion to deficits over a decade.

Estimates from far-Left nits don't count. The 2017 tax overhaul raised government revenues. This is simple, incontrovertible, inarguable fact.

Federal Receipts

Graph and download economic data for Federal Receipts (FYFR) from 1901 to 2025 about receipts, federal, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

The 2020–2021 explosion was overwhelmingly COVID
The huge deficits in 2020 and 2021 were caused by pandemic relief:

No one denies it. But the vast majority of that "relief" didn't go to individuals who needed it; it went to fraud, pork projects, and Democrat bastions -- everything from schools being paid $350 billion to close down to Minnesota daycare centers which cared for zero children.

These bills were bipartisan and signed by Trump.

You forget the multiple government shutdowns which occurred because Trump refused to sign even larger spending bills.

For decades, Republican economic policy has centered on cutting taxes, especially for corporations...

Basic economics teaches us that corporations don't pay taxes. All corporate taxes are simply a hidden tax on individuals. A wasteful hidden tax at that, as compliance costs eat up a large percentage of what's collected.

...and high earners.

47% of the country already pays zero federal income tax. I'd claim you can't cut taxes below zero, but Democrats have found a way to do even this absurdity -- many of those people actually get a "rebate" from the federal government (EIC credits, etc) despite paying nothing in taxes.