Page 2 of 34 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 499

Thread: US Steel & Aluminum Tariffs

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,343
    FDP politicians in Germany are calling for strikes against Google and Facebook as retaliation.

  2. #17
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,822
    From the editors of the National Review:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...cs-bad-policy/

    Steel Yourselves

    The beginning of the Trump administration’s rollout of long-promised protectionist measures for the U.S. steel and aluminum industry has been Beltway comic opera as Trump’s lightly informed economic enthusiasms interact chaotically with his staff’s attempts to keep him from indulging his worst impulses too deeply.

    It’s not like nobody saw this coming: Trade protectionism — crony capitalism for well-connected and politically sensitive firms and industries — is bad policy, but it is one of the few issues about which Donald Trump has been consistent in his public statements going back decades, to the 1980s at least. He ran on a protectionist agenda and specifically named steel imports as a source of irritation.

    The economics here are pretty straightforward. Trump thinks steel is just one more example of the Chinese getting one over on Americans, but China is in fact a minor player in the U.S. steel-import business, being No. 11 among nations exporting steel to the United States. A quarter of our imported steel comes from our NAFTA partners, mostly from Canada, which provides 16 percent of U.S. steel imports. Among Asian steel exporters, South Korea is our largest trading partner, not China. Moody’s projects that the country that will be most adversely affected by the tariffs is Canada, followed by Bahrain, a country that does not loom particularly large in our economic consciousness, having as it does an annual national economic output about one-fifth of the Ford Motor Company’s. It is better to punish one’s enemies than one’s allies.

    And it is no good at all to punish producers and consumers both, which is what tariffs do. Tariffs are a sales tax, in this case on a raw material that is used in everything from buildings to automobiles and industrial machinery — and the latter two are a big part of the U.S. export portfolio, something that ought to occur to a president who obsesses about the balance of trade. Steel is a necessary part of the machinery that produces the agricultural commodities, electronics, and industrial implements that are the heart of U.S. exports of goods. Advantaging a small number of politically connected firms at the expense of the broader manufacturing economy — which employs vastly more people and represents vastly more in the way of both economic production and exports — is damned foolish. As an economic matter, it is illiteracy in action. There’s a reason Caterpillar shares sank after the tariff announcement, along with Boeing, United Technologies, General Motors, and others.

    Trump’s announcement apparently came as a surprise to much of his staff, including chief of staff John Kelly. The attempts of Trump aides to manipulate the president and steer him away from his intended course of action have been, as our Yuval Levin put it, “bonkers.” (They may yet prevail on the president to step back from full implementation of the sweeping tariffs that he spoke of yesterday).

    More bonkers still have been the president’s own pronouncements on the issue, including this gem via Twitter: “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. When we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore – we win big. It’s easy!” Tell that to the construction managers who already are fast-tracking orders to try to get ahead of the tariffs or to the potato farmers who are in a panic about their export-dependent industry. (You know who cares a lot about multilateral trade accords? The National Potato Council.) Trade wars do not look like easy wins to U.S. corporate giants such as Apple, which probably will be the focus of retaliatory measures taken in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.

    The president is in error and, while he undoubtedly has the authority to impose these tariffs, doing so will put us in violation of both the letter and the spirit of our existing trade agreements. To what end? The policy will hurt more American businesses and American workers than it will help, and it will absolutely imperil export-dependent American industries from the farms to the factories. It’s a bad idea, conceived and unveiled badly.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 03 Mar 18, at 17:18.

  3. #18
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,591
    Trade wars are good, and easy to win as per the all knowing in the WH. Tell that to Harley-Davidson, Levi Strauss, and Makers Mark et al. His order contains no exceptions apparently which would mean a world wide trade war with all our major trading partners. Targeting Harley and bourbon producers is pretty smart given whose state they are in. Now if China (let's get in on the bandwagon) hits agriculture then we will have a trifecta hitting states that went for Trump.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nic-u-s-brands
    Last edited by tbm3fan; 03 Mar 18, at 18:20.

  4. #19
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,822
    Trump steps up war of words on trade with threat to tax EU cars

    In a tweet on Saturday, the president said: "If the EU wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on US companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the US.

    "They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!"

    A second tweet decried the "$800 Billion Dollar Yearly Trade Deficit because of our 'very stupid' trade deals and policies".

    Mr Trump added: "Our jobs and wealth are being given to other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. They laugh at what fools our leaders have been. No more!."
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43270388

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,343
    For fun i just looked up which countries have a trade deficit with the USA - as opposed to the other way around.

    According to the US Census Bureau, the US had a positive trade imbalance with 130 out of 234 countries in 2017. Well, "countries". Apparently the US has a different definition on that than the rest of the world. At the top of the CB's list is Hong Kong followed by the Netherlands, UAE, Belgium and Australia. The lowest, but still positive trade imbalance the US had with North Korea (yes.), Vatican City, St Pierre et Miquelon, the British Indian Ocean Territories and Wallis et Futuna.

    As for those with a negative trade imbalance, if we go for the least, Trump can still start laying blame in the following order from the top, if he can find more on a map than the first one at least: Syria (yes.), the Pitcairn Islands (with all of its 50 people), Norfolk Island (wasn't that occupied by Australia two years ago?), Heard and McDonald Islands (with all of its... zero people), Niue, Christmas Island (what do they export, Burmese refugees?), Tokelau, Burundi, Cocos Islands, Nauru...

    And as for surprising countries with high negative trade imbalance? Vietnam. Fifth-highest, between Germany and Ireland.

  6. #21
    Rickshaw Professional Senior Contributor Pedicabby's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Feb 07
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    948

  7. #22
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Pedicabby View Post
    Aren't they. Now threatening retaliation for retaliation, I'll call, and raise. So order your VW or Benz now.

    http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/03/news...ope/index.html

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,884
    As usual, the protectionists can't shoot straight.

    The biggest losers will be Canada and Korea, which last time I checked weren't on The Trumpet's shitlist.

    U.S. Imports from China

    Largest share of increased US imports from China, 2009-17 (% of total import increase)
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2009 _ 2010 _ 2011 _ 2012 _ 2013 _ 2014 _ 2015 _ 2016 _ 2017
    Computer & accessories_ 4.1_ _ _ 25.1 _ 21.3 _ _ 4.5 _ _ 0.5_ _ _4.7 _ -21.7_ _27.4 _ _ 19.8
    Phones, ICs & Telecom_ _7.8 _ _ _17.8 _ 31.1 _ _53.8 _ _51.0_ _29.2 _ _41.1 _ _3.4 _ _ 33.6
    Cars, car parts _ _ _ _ _ 4.0 _ _ _ 3.8 _ _ 6.8 _ _ 9.6 _ _ 8.8 _ _ 9.3 _ _ 5.2 _ _ 1.7 _ _ _1.8
    Clothes, shoes _ _ _ _ _ 3.9 _ _ _ 13.1 _ 7.0 __ _ 1.6 _ _ 7.0 _ _ 5.7 _ _ 8.7 _ _ 30.7 _ _ -2.8
    Metals * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11.8 _ _ _2.4 _ _5.1 _ _ 3.7 _ _ -2.0 _ _ 7.8 _ _ -2.1 _ _ 8.2 _ _ 2.7

    * Iron and steel mill products; bauxite and aluminum; copper; nickel; tin; zinc; nonmonetary gold; other precious metals; nonferrous metals; other precious metals; nonferrous metals, other; iron and steel products, n.e.c.; iron and steel, advanced; and finished metal shapes.

    To put it into perspective, the share of total imports from China represented by these categories are Computers, etc, 18.0%; phones, etc 16.6%; cars, etc, 3.5%, clothes and shoes, 13.4% and metals, 2.5%.
    https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...rts/c5700.html

    Detailed steel data here: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...eel/index.html
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,635
    Question - how much legal authority does Trump have to initiate the tariffs he is talking about? I only ask because a sizable number of hi sown party in Congress (and some Democrats) are strongly opposed to the whole idea. So can his decision be overridden?

  10. #25
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    11,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Question - how much legal authority does Trump have to initiate the tariffs he is talking about? I only ask because a sizable number of his own party in Congress (and some Democrats) are strongly opposed to the whole idea. So can his decision be overridden?
    The law is on the books, and the only way to block Trump is with a judicial injunction which can temporarily stop it, followed by an interpretation from a federal court that he's not exercising the law correctly.

    Technically, if he wanted to mess with China, he could have used Section 231 instead of a Section 232. :-)

    Sec. 231. PRODUCTS OF COMMUNIST COUNTRIES OR AREAS

    The President shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of the reduction, elimination, or continuance of any existing duty or other import restriction, or the continuance of any existing duty-free or excise treatment, proclaimed in carrying out any trade agreement under this title or under section 350 of the Tariff Act of 1930, to products, whether imported directly or indirectly, of any country or area dominated or controlled by Communism.
    This is the relevant section of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 he's relying on to implement the tariffs:

    Last edited by Ironduke; 04 Mar 18, at 13:15.

  11. #26
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Looks like stormy weather ahead

    Why India should lie low if a US-China trade war erupts | TOI Blogs | Mar 04 2018

    March 4, 2018, 12:51 AM IST SA Aiyar in Swaminomics | Economy | TOI
    A trade war between the US and China seems about to erupt. India may find trade and non-trade barriers rising in both the US and China and will need to steer its way carefully through the two-way gunfire.

    US president Donald Trump has just imposed import duties of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium. In January he had imposed duties of 30% on solar panels and 20-50% on washing machines. He has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by his predecessor Barack Obama and forced re-negotiation of the North America Free Trade Area with Canada and Mexico.

    His main trade target is China, with whom the US had a trade deficit of $375 billion in 2017. China has so far tried warning Trump about possible retaliation while trying to talk its way out. Now that Trump seems intent on trade war, China can meekly surrender or retaliate. It will very likely retaliate, since its leadership hates to lose face. It is now economically strong enough to seriously hurt the US.

    China is a big importer of US soybeans, maize and meat. If it shifts these purchases to other countries, US farm producers— a powerful lobby— will suffer. China has been buying thousands of aircraft from Boeing, and can shift to Europe’s Airbus. It has reluctantly begun heeding intellectual property rules on pharmaceuticals, films and music, but can retaliate by selectively targeting US companies in these fields.



    SURRENDER OR ELSE: Trump is targeting not just Xi’s China but all exporters to the US, including India
    China can impose non-tariff barriers on American banks, insurance companies, airlines, and other service industries. Finally, it holds $1.3 trillion of US treasury bonds in its forex reserves, and can dump these on the market. That will cause US bond prices to crash and US interest rates to skyrocket.

    This risks inviting fresh retaliation by the US, followed by further retaliation by China. Each salvo will bring cheers from protectionist lobbies, but also hurt both economies, as protectionism typically does. Higher tariffs on steel and aluminium can render uncompetitive US products using these metals (like cars and machinery), and this could destroy rather than create more US jobs. Higher duties on solar panels have raised the cost of new solar plants and hence US electricity costs.

    If China stops imports of agricultural products or aircraft from the US, it will have to pay a higher price to alternative suppliers. If it dumps dollars, it will suffer big losses even as it hurts the US. Yet China can argue that tough retaliation alone will dissuade Trump from imposing even more anti-China measures.

    Trump is targeting not just China but all exporters to the US. At his last meeting with Narendra Modi, he blasted India’s 70% import duty on motor-cycles that hurt Harley-Davidson. Modi offered to cut the duty to 50%. Trump sneered this was peanuts. Harley-Davidson already has two factories in India and so has not asked for lower duties. But Trump would like Harley-Davidson to shut its Indian factories and produce only in the US.

    He has warned India to slash its trade surplus with the US. In Washington, Indian and US officials have agreed to trim the trade surplus based on comparative advantage. The most competitive US industries are defence, aircraft and energy (oil and gas). India has agreed to step up its imports of all three. But Trump has warned he will demand much more. India is too weak to stand up and retaliate. It should smile, try to pacify Trump, and limit the damage.

    China also knows that fighting the US single-handed is difficult. It may well ask other countries to join hands in opposing US trade barriers and threatening joint retaliation. The European Union may be interested. So too may some Asians. None of them dares take on the US unilaterally, but could be open to forming a really wide coalition.

    What should India do in such circumstances? It certainly must not take the lead in forging an anti-US front with China. Its strategic relationship with the US needs to be nurtured, even if that is painful. If, however, an anti-US trade coalition gathers force, especially in multilateral forums like the WTO, India could unobtrusively join that crowd, making sure it does not stand out. The best hope must be that Trump’s tactics will backfire, hit the US economy, and help boot him out in the 2020 election.

    That is far from certain. Anyway, this is not a time for India to have any illusions about exercising global or regional leadership. Its approach should be that of an ant among raging elephants.

    DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.
    Part i'm not understanding is how did the US become a target instead of China !!!

  12. #27
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    His order contains no exceptions apparently which would mean a world wide trade war with all our major trading partners.
    Right, this is how it looks

  13. #28
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,785
    There's not going to be a trade war. He wants to open the world up by threatening a trade war.

    This is a poker game and he's started bidding. Hardball everyone and see what cracks.

    If the end result is a more open, more fair global trade regime then great

    We're about to find out

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,889
    Tend to agree he is bluffing but I think more importantly he was just thinking of say to change the subject.

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,473
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Norfolk Island (wasn't that occupied by Australia two years ago?)
    Out by about a century. UK transferred it to us in 1914. We removed its local government 2 years ago (which it ha shad since 1979) & replaced it with an administrator.

    We have to make allowances for our American cousins. They can be a bit slow on the uptake sometimes.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Review: Man of Steel
    By gunnut in forum Movie & TV Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 13,, 11:15
  2. This Guy Has Balls of Steel
    By Bigfella in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07 Jul 09,, 02:37
  3. Mexico slaps tariffs on U.S. goods in truck feud
    By Donnie in forum International Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18 Mar 09,, 20:46
  4. U.S airforce using transparent aluminum?
    By canoe in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21 Oct 05,, 04:58
  5. EU scores steel victory over US
    By Ironduke in forum International Economy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11 Nov 03,, 21:15

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •