Update on January 26, 2025, at 11:56 pm EST: On Sunday night, the White House said Colombia had agreed to the “unrestricted acceptance” of migrants from Colombia and would allow them to be returned to the country “including on US military aircraft, without limitation or delay.” The White House said it would not impose tariffs or sanctions unless the agreement was violated but visa restrictions will stay in place until “the first planeload of Colombian deportees is successfully returned.”
President Trump has ordered an increase in tariffs on Colombian goods and visa restrictions on Colombian officials after Colombia turned away two US military planes carrying migrants being deported from the US.
Trump announced a 25% tariff increase on all Colombian goods coming into the US and said they would be raised to 50% in one week. He also ordered visa restrictions on Colombian government officials and their “allies and supporters,” enhanced inspections on shipments coming from Colombia, and other unspecified sanctions.
“These measures are just the beginning. We will not allow the Colombian Government to violate its legal obligations with regard to the acceptance and return of the Criminals they forced into the United States!” the president wrote on Truth Social.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro responded to Trump in a series of posts on X and said he rejected the plane because the Colombian migrants were treated as criminals. “In civilian planes, without being treated like criminals, we will receive our fellow citizens,” he said.
Petro also said he would send his presidential plane to pick up the migrants in a more “dignified” manner but also announced a retaliatory tariff increase of 25% on all US goods being imported to Colombia.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly followed up on Trump’s order by imposing the visa restrictions. “Measures will continue until Colombia meets its obligations to accept the return of its own citizens. America will not back down when it comes to defending its national security interests,” the State Department said in a statement on the restrictions.
Colombia has long been a partner of the US and is designated a major non-NATO ally. The aggressive deportation policy could clash with one of the Trump administration’s other goals in Latin America: pushing back on Chinese influence in the region. Honduras has threatened that if the Trump administration follows through on a mass deportation plan to the country, US troops based in Honduras could be kicked out.
Seems Petro already folded: he's dispatching a presidential airplane to return illegal immigrants. Hmmm…
They all fold when it comes to bully power from Trump and the US. Some fold because money promises. Wonder if Jordan, Egypt or whoever else Trump wants to send Palestinians to when Trump either promises them money or threatens them like he did with Columbia.
It will just depend if the newly created BRIC nations will fold as well and let the US adn Israel do whatever they please.
Not everybody folds: many refugees are Honduran and Honduras did not fold (yet). Have you heard of any plane with handcuffed migrants landing in Venezuela even? Even Petro is trying to solve the matter constructively but with guarantees for the migrants (unlike Lula, who is a shill).
No Trump folded. Petro wanted them transported in civilian planes that is why he wanted the presidential plane used.
Columbia never refused to take its citizens back.
Trump is acting like a petulant child for political reasons.
Colombia! What Trump has been most criticized for is for mispelling the name. It’s Colombia with two Os! Columbia is where Trump lives, not Petro: “District of Columbia”! What an illiterate!
Anyway. It’s a half victory, especially when compared with the shameful attitude of Lula, which follows up with his boycott of Venezuela at Kazan. Petro is OK but not accepting any flights, especially on face of what Trump is saying (insults and threats) would be a much stronger message.
Two government planes were sent to pick up people. This was never about not accepting people, but about Colombia’s refusal to allow US military planes to land. It shoukd not matter to Trump that US military planes were not allowed to land. In fact —- how about saving money, so poor taxpayer gets spared paying for the cost of military flights.
Hope other countries do the same. Come and pick up your own.
But Trump is just taking advantage of this situation to clibber Colimbia for its disobedience. As good an excuse as any.
So Americans will be paying more for their Coffee and Cocaine……. the CIA will not be pleased!
Regarding cocaine, only legal cocaine (i.e. for e.g. medical use) will be more expensive – or do you believe that the illegal drug smugglers pay tariffs?
Lowering tides sink all ships
If you are proposing that higher tariffs on trade lowers the US customers wealth (ability to pay) then you might be on to
something – only lower demand leads to lower prices… but then during the great depression the demand for entertainment went up not down – so higher tariffs leading to effective lower ability to pay could lead to higher demand and therefor prices.
This however requires that cocaine is kind of a Giffen good.
Tariffs not only influence state revenues, supply, competition and supply chains, but also prices, costs and prosperity, because why else does a state impose customs duties if not because of protectionism?
https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/tariffs/
https://evmagazine.com/news/the-trump-tariffs-pros-cons-global-impact
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/news/what-are-tariffs-and-how-do-they-affect-you/
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/tariff-trade-barrier-basics.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smoot-hawley-tariff-act.asp
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microeconomics/consumer-producer-surplus/international-trade/v/trade-and-tariffs
https://edc.gov.bz/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Welfare-Effects-of-a-Tariff.pdf
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/ Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/the-effects-of-tarifff-rates-on-the-u-s-economy-what-the-producer-price-index-tells-us.htm
https://fortune.com/article/trump-tariff-impact-on-your-wallet/
https://www.cato.org/publications/separating-tariff-facts-tariff-fictions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2024/11/21/the-price-inflation-paradox-how-tariffs-really-affect-the-economy/
https://www.cfr.org/article/tariff-strategies-dont-cause-inflation-trade-wars-do
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-tariffs
https://www.economicstrategygroup.org/publication/strain_protectionism/
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/ib-economics-trade-protection-arguments-for-and-against
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free-trade.asp
https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/benefits-free-trade-addressing-key-myths
https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/822438/306c76bad7214946ac90075a442691ad/472B63F073F071307366337C94F8C870/2020-01-protektionismus-data.pdf
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2019/html/ecb.ebart201903_01~e589a502e5.en.html The economic implications of rising protectionism: a euro area and global perspective
There is much truth to what you are saying – tariffs are a particular poor instrument – one caveat – there may be some few sound reasons for applying tariffs – if a country (or groups of countries like EU) wants to curb CO2 pollution (by taxing energy domestically), then it would make sense to apply equalizing CO2 tariffs to products made in countries where there are no energy taxes to level the playing field.
Otherwise they are simply moving their production across borders sabotaging their own production. It is however very difficult to find the right balance and I’m not aware that this has been done yet – also the energy taxes work to curb domestic consumption making energy even cheaper in countries not applying such energy taxes.
“if a country (or groups of countries like EU) wants to deliver favors to its politically connected business constituencies, pretending it’s about curbing CO2 pollution, then it would make sense to apply equalizing CO2 tariffs to products made in countries where there are no energy taxes so as to shut out those politically connected business’s international competitors.”
Fixed, no charge.
Do try to read what is written it helps fighting the conspiracy theories that are trying to take over your mind!
Do you believe that applying energy taxes was a favor to its politically connected business constituencies???
Because that is what they have done – as implied in my comment they have not (yet) applied equalizing tariffs!!!
Applying any tax is a favor to politically connected business constituencies.
The purpose of taxation, like the purpose of government, is to redistribute wealth from the productive class to the political class. That’s what government does. That’s what govenrment IS. Everything else about goverment is just the marketing rhetoric.
How is applying taxes to the very industries a favor to politically connected – (I presume that you agree that IG Farben, VW etc. are among the politically connected)?
And how does taxation redistribute wealth to the political class – in my country the main recipients of the tax revenue is the poorer – we get free schooling, free healthcare, free universities, free libraries – benefits for the poorest and the taxation is progressive.
Yes the productive class i.e. the best earners and the very rich pay the highest marginal tax and the highest over all tax as a fraction of income – but in general they can afford it.
The benefits “the poorer” happen to receive from taxes are the crumbs for the table. Who do you think makes the money building those schools, hospitals, universities, and libraries? Staffing them?
In the US, students get subsidized (sometimes 100% subsidized) meals at school. What is the purpose of that? To subsidize agricultural industries. The meals are a side effect.
Are you ignorant of the income distribution in Scandinavia? We have some of the lowest Gini coefficients (fairly easy if , being poor) while being some of the richest countries in the world.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country
Staff in the hospitals, universities, schools etc. are far from the best paid people of their job categories – the companies building these facilities are not earning more on these jobs than the companies building for the private sector.
We don’t universally provide school meals, and where it is done that is not the best way for the agriculture to make money – EU subsidizes the agricultural sector plenty already.
No the idea that taxes are only ever to benefit the affluent is pretty much proven wrong by the Scandinavian countries – we have the highest tax levels combined with the most equal income distribution of the rich countries. Now try t explain how that came about.
“the idea that taxes are only ever to benefit the affluent”
I wasn’t speaking to that idea.
I was speaking to the fact that the mission of government, and the purpose of taxation, is to redistribute wealth from the productive class to the political class.
So is that why we have the richest societies with the lowest corruption and the lowest income inequality in Scandinavia – or to put a different way is the political class the poor?
The poor are certainly co-opted INTO the political class to the extent necessary to keep the gravy train running.
So you admit that the very best results that have been proven in real life, and are not just theoretical possibilities, have been achieved by the highest tax levels in the world.
Maybe scale back your critics of the notion until you have examples of some state actually achieving better results using a different path!?
I've "admitted" nothing about "results."
And as for Scandinavia's "results" being "the very best," that's pretty subjective. I'm pretty low income, and the Scandinavian countries don't top my personal list of places I'd like to live.
You are now moving the goal posts – you wrote:
Clearly implying that the poor could be better served with less taxation – do you dispute this???
What the Scandinavian example demonstrates is that this is patently false!
You now as I said move the goal posts by viewing it from your personal preferences – you are I'd propose not representative of the poor in general.
As in you have a strong preference for other things that the safety, free health care, education for your kids, a place to live.
So either admit that high taxes can be a way to overall better living standards, less poverty and more income equality – and are therefore it is not necessarily true that:
Or to put in different words you just did not speak to what can be achieved in the practical world but to some theoretic idea in your head – a thing that no one have yet been able to make as a system in the real world.
“Clearly implying that the poor could be better served with less taxation – do you dispute this???”
I don’t pretend that “serving the poor” is a function of government at all.
You do however pretend that taxes do not serve the poor or if so only very badly – and that is what I object to.
In Denmark taxes are at least partially justified as a means to finance assistance for the less affluent / old / sick.
And as illustrated by the outcome it actually works.
As an aside my question back to you is – are you as unwilling to help your fellow citizens?
Just asking because, the way I see it:
Unless the students do not eat or eat much less (insufficiently) the agriculture producers would earn about the same from selling the food directly to them.
Taxes serve the political class. Any service to anyone else is either accidental or the minimum required to get the tax scheme swallowed.
“are you as unwilling to help your fellow citizens?”
I prefer to help my fellow citizens directly rather than as an incidental side effect of paying protection money to a gang.
“Unless the students do not eat or eat much less (insufficiently) the agriculture producers would earn about the same from selling the food directly to them.”
Yes, because most kindergarteners have jobs and buy their own groceries.
You fail to address the point that we obviously achieve much better services for all citizens in Scandinavia by paying much taxes.
Is it that you have a theory that lower taxes are worse than higher taxes but higher taxes are worse than no taxes?
You do know that we have many examples of this even today e.g. the US lean much more towards this than Denmark.
You may prefer more people living in abject poverty unable to read, afford healthcare or even to properly feed themselves – but I'm pretty sure that the poor would much prefer a Danish kind of system.
What are you saying here – that they ought to work or that it does not count that their parents would pay for their food?
“You fail to address the point that we obviously achieve much better services for all citizens in Scandinavia by paying much taxes.”
That’s not a “point.” That’s your subjective opinion of what constitutes “better.”
“You may prefer more people living in abject poverty unable to read, afford healthcare or even to properly feed themselves”
I prefer exactly the opposite. I prefer maximum prosperity, literacy, health, and ability to eat. Which is why I oppose the existence of overgrown street gangs that reduce all those things with their rake-off/protection rackets.
“What are you saying here – that they ought to work or that it does not count that their parents would pay for their food?”
No, I was just noticing that they don’t buy groceries.
Agricultural subsidies come out of the pockets of their parents. Some of those subsidies, such as price floors (and supply reductions from the government’s school buys), make the food more expensive for those parents. And the parents ALSO buy the food for the “free” lunches with their taxes.
No in the real world we have in general agreed upon that:
– living longer in better health
– with a higher living standard
– being better educated
– with much lower crime rates
– with few restrictions
– and finally consistently scoring higher on happiness surveys.
Are a better outcome.
As I point out Denmark (indeed all of Scandinavia) beats the US hands down on all these parameters.
That while having much higher taxes and as about the only restriction we have to apply and register for fire arms.
You claim to be for achieving this situation – but ignore that this is achievable through higher taxes not lower taxes.
Can you point to any place on earth where they have achieved your utopia i.e. a better outcome measured by what you appear to agree to be a better outcome:
– living longer (Hong Kong)
– in better health (Singapore)
– with a higher living standard (Switzerland)
– being better educated (Iceland)
– with much lower crime rates (Singapore)
– with few restrictions (Switzerland tops the World Freedom Index, followed by New Zealand; Denmark and Sweden do make the top 5))
– and finally consistently scoring higher on happiness surveys (the Scandinavian countries do top those rankings).
I don’t have a utopia in mind. I just don’t pretend states aren’t what they are. Sorry that bothers you.
Sure but not on all parameters together and BTW Iceland is taxed as the Scandinavian countries.
It does not bother me that you pretend that states only tax for the benefit of political class – you are just wrong – you are entitled to be as uninformed as you like. If you were right then we would see countries with lower tax rates scoring higher.
You seem to be asserting that it is impossible for both of two things to be true:
1) That states tax their captive productive classes for for the benefit of their ruling political class classes; and
2) That some states find ways to make the productive class victims of that taxation reasonably happy for some non-trivial periods of time.
I disagree that it’s impossible for both of those things to be true.
No I find that eminently very possible – only if that was the only thing they were achieving by taxation then states with higher tax rates would do worse on the parameters we debate – not better.
How do you explain that the Scandinavian countries do much better than states with lower taxes?
Follow the evidence if you were right then at least some lower taxed places should be doing better not just in one or two of the parameters but in all.
When you find that this is clearly not the case – question your assumptions or develop a better theory.
We aren’t “debating” any “parameters.”
You’ve declared that you consider certain metrics important (I may or may not consider them important).
You’ve made claims that the Scandinavian regimes are “better” on those metrics. In some cases those claims are pretty clearly accurate, in other cases less so.
I do not disagree with you that a farmer can give his cows and sheep relatively “happy” lives while milking the cows and shearing the sheep to provide his favorite kid with milk and warm sweaters.
I just disagree with you that the farmer is anything other than a farmer, or that the farmer’s purpose is serving the happiness of the cows and sheep.
Well – I had the impression that you just agreed on parameters that we think preferable, or did you not write:
If you do not agree on metrics then fine that is the same as admitting that you cannot judge which situation is preferable.
If you stick with your stated preferences then you have to admit that Scandinavian countries out perform states with lower taxation – on those exact parameters.
Until you have a practical system for achieving better results on those parameters all you have is criticism without any policy for doing better.
Lowering taxes – or setting the cows free is not going to bring about a better situation for the majority of the people.
But sure Elon would get richer!
Well, we should start with the first part: Whether or not we are “debating.”
A debate presupposes a specific proposition, a framework for argument, and a mechanism for determining which side prevails.
At the moment, we’re just dicking around replying to each others’ comments. That’s not a “debate.”
Now, to the metrics: Saying that I prefer maximum prosperity, literacy, health, and ability to eat is neither the same thing as agreeing that any particular state maximizes any of those preference, nor as agreeing that states in general do. I can cheerfully agree that Charles Manson does better than Ted Bundy on a “fewest murders personally committed by various murderers” metric without endorsing the notion that murderers are the only people who can reduce murders.
Seeing as how Elon’s wealth is based on direct (e.g. payments for space launches) and indirect (e.g. tax credits that artificially advantage Tesla vehicles versus non-Tesla vehicles on purchase price) taxpayer subsidies, he’s actually a prime example of taxation being redistribution of wealth from the productive class to the political class.
What you have done is to generalize suggesting that:
I have argued that if this was the case then we should expect states with higher taxes do worse than states with lower taxes on income equality and arguably also on the wider parameters of health and wealth.
As this is not the case then I consider it proven that your argument that 'Any service to anyone else is either accidental or the minimum required' has been shown to be false.
You have one final chance to explain why e.g. the Scandinavian states achieve so much better results on the parameters they are trying to improve using taxes, if you maintain that "Any service to anyone else is either accidental or the minimum required"
Otherwise I have to conclude that your statement is one of a belief system not one that you can make coherent arguments for.
On a final note yes Elon is an example of tax being redistributive – I have only ever argued that taxation in no way have to be limited to redistributing to a political class- lest we all are part of the political class in which case it is not a useful class or poorly named.
—–
What you have done is to generalize suggesting that:
**Taxes serve the political class. Any service to anyone else is either accidental or the minimum required to get the tax scheme swallowed.**
I have argued that if this was the case then we should expect states with higher taxes do worse than states with lower taxes on income equality and arguably also on the wider parameters of health and wealth.”
—–
If we were debating, I’d point out that your argument incorporates a “begging the question” fallacy. It simply assumes that all people, at least at population level, will demand the same benefits — and the same level of benefits — versus level of taxation.
I’ve also seen no evidence that the Scandinavian regimes are necessarily trying to improve the parameters you assert they’re doing better than others at, as opposed to just evaluating what they have to do to remain in power and doing that.
As for chances, I have all the chances I choose to take up until the instant I die. My chances don’t come from you.
And I would point our that I do not assume that at all and that this is not necessary to disprove your statement:'
All that is needed is to show that the Scandinavian states that do want to serve the preferences of their electorates do this better than any other states with similar goals and that hence your statement is patently false.
All you have to do is to look up their stated goals – I'm sorry I assumed that you knew the concept of the well-fare state.
True
In view of taxes and duties, I consider two to three taxes in principle: turnover (import turnover), income (revenue) and municipal taxes, each with more than two rates, to be completely sufficient to burden all business transactions or income (revenue) and to guarantee the revenue of public budgets. This makes a tax system more transparent for everyone. I reject a capitalist emissions trading system, as it is insufficient to control investment or consumption.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/current-federal-income-tax-brackets
https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/sales-tax/
https://www.customssupport.com/insights/common-types-import-duty
https://www.dhl.com/discover/en-my/logistics-advice/import-export-advice/All-You-Need-to-Know-About-US-Import-Tax-and-Duties
https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/company-tax-excise-vat_en
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/calculation-customs-duties/customs-tariff_en
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/union-customs-code/national-customs-administrations_en
https://eclear.com/article/staying-compliant-with-eu-vat-reforms-in-2025/
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/eu-import-requirements-and-documentation
https://www.gtai.de/en/invest/investment-guide/customs-in-germany-and-the-eu
https://stripe.com/in/resources/more/import-tax-germany
We pretty much agree on this – mine was not a defense of the way we have addressed the CO2 issue in EU, just an example where a tariff would (if it was applied) make the energy tax less absurd.
As it stands it only serves to move production across the borders.
In politics we (often) cannot get what is best but have to make do with worse 'solutions' if/when that is the case it is nice to know how to make the idiocy less bad.
Petro was sending us hardened criminals, deliberately. He is probably just another Marxist cartel member.
The deportation of migrants by plane, if Trump's plans are to expel millions in that manner, that should remind us of Lincoln's idea to transport all of the already free and newly freed slaves to Africa using ships of the US merchant marine. He dropped his plan when he was told that it would be impossible even if he used all the available vessels of the UIS merchant marine and navy.
One of the justifications for secession warned the Yankees intended to allow freed blacks to take power in the South as “pagans” and then slaughter them as if they were pagan Amerindians.
Lincoln looked at sending to Central America or Latin anyway too.
i am presenting one all with with a new trump noodle.
Fuck You Trump -FUT
Just to cmrar things up. Trump administration seems to be saying that military and covilian planes would take people and complete the job. With the threats of sanctions pending, the message from the White Housr seems to be — we won. Colombia backed down.
But now I understand that Colombia sent two govenment planes to pixk up people — insisting that they will not be treated as criminals, but travel with dignity. Which story is true?
If people are here illegally they should be sent home. I just wish Trump had as much enthusiasm for cutting off aid to Western colonists illegally occupying Southern Lebanon and the West Bank.
The Latin Blood boils faster than Canadian's or European's….!