this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
161 points (98.2% liked)

World News

40018 readers
2291 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump announced that 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico will take effect on February 1, though a decision on including oil remains pending.

He justified the move by citing undocumented migration, fentanyl trafficking, and trade deficits.

Trump also hinted at new tariffs on China.

Canada and Mexico plan retaliatory measures while seeking to address U.S. concerns.

If oil imports are taxed, it could raise costs for businesses and consumers, potentially contradicting Trump's pledge to reduce living expenses.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 43 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

Its Americans trying to buy food who will be hit with a 25% tarriff, not Mexico. And Mexican farmers wont see a dime of that revenue, if anything they will see a decline in revenue as people stop buying the products. It all goes to the US treasury.

[–] wisely@feddit.org 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Yes and then it can be funneled into the pockets of the person who is calling for the tariffs.

It's weird that everyone is taking the premise of making america great again with tariffs seriously. The reason it doesn't make sense is because that's just a distraction to the fact that it's for personal profit like with everything else.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 24 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Canada and Mexico are still part of that North American free trade agreement thing. We (Canada) will just get our food from Mexico and South America like we've always done. We'll just skip America.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 hours ago

back in the first episode, lord diaper whined, and whined and shit on nafta, forcing it to be 'renegotiated' by him. he just had to have his name on everything.

nafta was a long time in the making, from reagan, to bush, to clinton when it finally went into effect. it had bipartisan support in congress, a little stronger from the right.

undone by a single shart from an orange moron that leaked, and then magically 'fixed' by the same..

in the end, what mr. art-of-the-fucking-deal managed to 'negotiate' is almost entirely the same as the nafta he hated so much.

now he's shitting on his own fucking deal. fuck'm.

i fully support your efforts to avoid our products and companies for the next few years. and if anyone up there wants to come renovate the white house again...... i won't be in your way.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 15 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I live in Texas, and it's hard to overstate how much of our produce is imported from Mexico. This would be an almost immediate 25% price hike on food that basically can't be grown at scale here because we don't have Mexico's climate. Surely he'd exempt food from whatever he's about to do. Right...?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

"surely he'd exempt X from..."

Exact same reflection as all the people who depend on migrant workers that voted for him only for the bubble to burst in their face.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

it's a 25% import tax paid by the importer. when their margins are added, and then the distributors' on top of their higher costs, at each step of the distribution chain.. it'll be a fair bit more than 'just' +25% once product reaches the store shelves.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Will it benefit the average person? If the answer is yes, you can take it off the list.

Even if it benefits the rich, it would have to exponentially hurt the average American more for it to be considered. They've already turned their nose up at studies that have proven better working conditions, pay, and benefits would make them richer in the long run because it takes a little bit of control away from them. These people are sick, and the only thing that is going to correct it at this point is a violent uprising.

[–] prodajvodapavel@aggregatet.org 1 points 4 hours ago

Thank you.

Finally someone rational who understands that tariffs are horrible for the working class.