Rip wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 12:14 amMexico as well, paying for that wall after all.
No, American companies that pay higher prices are paying for that wall. Winning!
I doubt it. Canada will almost certainly be exempt we can get it there. Or you know from our own steel producers.
Well, if you're not buying it from Mexico then nobody (but the American taxpayer) is paying for the wall then. And American companies will still be paying higher prices than if they bought the steel from the cheaper sources that are going to be hit by tariffs.
I don't mind paying a little more for something from a friend rather than buying it on the cheap from an adversary.
and the EU is our adversary because.....?
Not really the EU. Pretty much just Germany. They deserve it for their Russian pipeline scheme.
I mean that is literally the only argument you need to put forth on tariffs. They are idiotic unless you are an emerging economy and need to protect some industries. Otherwise let the market sort it out mostly. If you want extra credit, help people transition to new roles as the market adjusts.
Also it is sorta hilarious that *this* is what loses him the WSJ editorial page.
Holman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:08 am
It's becoming clear that Trump doesn't actually know what a trade deficit is, or a tariff, or how an economy works.
The previous day, Mr. Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary D. Cohn, warned the chief of staff, John F. Kelly, that he might resign if the president went ahead with the plan, according to people briefed on the discussion. Mr. Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, had lobbied fiercely against the measures.
...
When White House aides arrived at work on Thursday, they had no clear idea of what Mr. Trump would say about trade. He had summoned steel and aluminum executives to a meeting, but when the White House said only that he would listen to their concerns, it seemed to signal that Mr. Cohn had held off the tariffs.
Yet at the end of a photo session, when a reporter asked Mr. Trump about the measures, he confirmed that the United States would announce next week that it is imposing long-term tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. The White House has not even completed a legal review of the measures.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Holman wrote:It's becoming clear that Trump doesn't actually know what a trade deficit is, or a tariff, or how an economy works.
Fake News! I saw him on The Apprentice. Brilliant businessman. Had a fancy conference room with gold trim. Those leather chairs didn't pay for themselves.
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:04 am
I mean that is literally the only argument you need to put forth on tariffs. They are idiotic unless you are an emerging economy and need to protect some industries. Otherwise let the market sort it out mostly. If you want extra credit, help people transition to new roles as the market adjusts.
Also it is sorta hilarious that *this* is what loses him the WSJ editorial page.
Not really shocking at all - WSJ is the avatar of, well, wall street conservatives. Free trade is one of the few things they care about beyond whatever the GOP leadership is saying.
I am curious how the politics of this will play out. So far the GOP establishment has gotten everything that they wanted out of Trump. This is the first time that he's threatening to go against their interests.
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:36 am
And here I was wondering what would trigger the next recession. “The president” was not on the short list.
Really? President Trump was at the top of my short list.
Yeah, I was just about to post the same thing to the thread about the Fed a couple of nights ago when the board went down. The only foreseeable threats to the economy at the moment are self-inflicted ones, and Trump is just the guy to inflict them.
By itself, this won't derail the expansion. If it snowballs, though....
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:27 amNot really shocking at all - WSJ is the avatar of, well, wall street conservatives. Free trade is one of the few things they care about beyond whatever the GOP leadership is saying.
I am curious how the politics of this will play out. So far the GOP establishment has gotten everything that they wanted out of Trump. This is the first time that he's threatening to go against their interests.
RIght - not surprising - just funny because it is a true monocle pop moment. Oh supporting Nazis? Saber rattling with North Korea? A complete lack of ethics? Pish posh. IMPACT ON TRADE! UNACCEPTABLE!
The only foreseeable threats to the economy at the moment are self-inflicted ones,....
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
The only foreseeable threats to the economy at the moment are self-inflicted ones,....
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:27 amNot really shocking at all - WSJ is the avatar of, well, wall street conservatives. Free trade is one of the few things they care about beyond whatever the GOP leadership is saying.
I am curious how the politics of this will play out. So far the GOP establishment has gotten everything that they wanted out of Trump. This is the first time that he's threatening to go against their interests.
RIght - not surprising - just funny because it is a true monocle pop moment. Oh supporting Nazis? Saber rattling with North Korea? A complete lack of ethics? Pish posh. IMPACT ON TRADE! UNACCEPTABLE!
Trump could invoke the "Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917" to hit a nation with tariffs as high as he wants. Under the law, the president can restrict all types of trade "during time of war." That definition is very loose though.
America doesn't have to be at war with a particular nation -- it just has to be "at war" somewhere in the world in order to apply tariffs against other countries.
Experts believe U.S. special forces in Syria and Libya would suffice to meet that requirement for Trump to hit countries such as China and Mexico with tariffs.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon used this act to impose a 10% import tariff (not directed at any particular nation) citing the Korean War, which had ended nearly two decades prior. Technically, America was still in a state of emergency which had not lifted.
All to say: the excuse of war has a very loose interpretation that the President can use.
2:
If that law sounds too outdated for Trump to use, there's another -- the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
It gives the president authority to use tariffs on another country during a "national emergency." Again, defining an emergency is vague. Losing manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China would suffice as one. Also, courts have never rejected a president's reasoning.
The big difference between this Act and the one from 1917 is that Trump can't seize assets using this one. But that's not his aim anyway.
This law has been invoked against Nicaragua, Panama, Sierra Leone and Somalia. It was used "in circumstances that few observers would characterize as an unusual or extraordinary threat," says Hufbauer.
3:
Trump can also rely on the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122. It gives him authority to impose across-the-board tariffs.
Trump just needs to find "an adverse impact on national security from imports." Lost jobs could qualify.
The caveat: There is a cap on the tariffs of 15% and it's only good for 150 days. Then Congress needs to approve it. So, it's a blunt rule that could have a severe short term impact but it expires after five months, unless it is extended by Congress.
Trump can also use the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Ronald Reagan used this one. It allows Trump to slap targeted tariffs on certain industries, like steel. It's not as broad, but Trump can raise tariffs as high as he wants on specific things.
If the E.U. wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on U.S. companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S. They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!
A general U.S.-Europe trade rift? Is it Putin's birthday *already*?
Considering how many cars Ford sells in Europe (they are usually in the top 2 or 3 brands overall if memory serves and definitely sell as shit ton of Fiestas) I wonder how they feel about that tweet?
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Enough wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:32 pm
Considering how many cars Ford sells in Europe (they are usually in the top 2 or 3 brands overall if memory serves and definitely sell as shit ton of Fiestas) I wonder how they feel about that tweet?
Well, since Michigan helped put him over the top, I'm sure they are elated with all of this winning they were promised.
I want to think that "all-out trade war" is Trump's opening gambit in some larger negotiation that I don't know about. He typically starts with an apocalyptic threat or insulting lowball offer and then backs down from there. It's a transparent strategy, really, but it works for him when the press and everyone else reacts as if the gambit is for realsies.
I don't think he's dumb enough to go barreling full-bore down the tariff path...but he's pretty dumb, so maybe.
Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:55 pm
I want to think that "all-out trade war" is Trump's opening gambit in some larger negotiation that I don't know about. He typically starts with an apocalyptic threat or insulting lowball offer and then backs down from there. It's a transparent strategy, really, but it works for him when the press and everyone else reacts as if the gambit is for realsies.
I don't think he's dumb enough to go barreling full-bore down the tariff path...but he's pretty dumb, so maybe.
The Trump administration will not grant exemptions from its new aluminum and steel tariffs for allies such as Canada, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Sunday, as he defended President Trump's sudden imposition of new trade premiums that are likely to hit Canada and Europe hardest.
“As soon as he starts exempting countries, he has to raise the tariff on everybody else,” Navarro said when asked about Canada and the European Union. “As soon as he exempts one country, his phone starts ringing with the heads of state of other countries.”
In a contentious interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, Navarro insisted that other countries won't retaliate in a way that hurts U.S. consumers, something disputed by many economists and some Republican lawmakers.
“There are no downstream price effects on our industries that are significant,” Navarro said on Fox, one of several interviews he did Sunday as the administration sought to promote and defend a decision that appears likely to start a global trade war.
The biggest burden of Trump’s new tariffs would be borne by Canada, the largest U.S. trading partner. Canada is the largest exporter of steel and aluminum to the United States, supplying $7.2 billion worth of aluminum and $4.3 billion of steel last year. Overall, the United States runs a trade surplus with Canada, which buys $48 billion worth of U.S. automobiles and $40 billion of machinery, in addition to agricultural products.
The steel and aluminum tariffs would also hit Britain, Germany, South Korea, Turkey and Japan, countries with which the United States has close national security ties.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
The Trump administration will not grant exemptions from its new aluminum and steel tariffs for allies such as Canada, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Sunday, as he defended President Trump's sudden imposition of new trade premiums that are likely to hit Canada and Europe hardest.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
The Trump administration will not grant exemptions from its new aluminum and steel tariffs for allies such as Canada, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Sunday, as he defended President Trump's sudden imposition of new trade premiums that are likely to hit Canada and Europe hardest.
The Trump administration will not grant exemptions from its new aluminum and steel tariffs for allies such as Canada, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Sunday, as he defended President Trump's sudden imposition of new trade premiums that are likely to hit Canada and Europe hardest.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to suggest that Canada and Mexico could win exemptions to his planned sweeping tariffs on steel and aluminum if the two countries sign a new NAFTA trade deal and take other steps.
He made the comments as the United States, Canada and Mexico were wrapping up their latest round of talks on revamping the 1994 NAFTA deal, and as U.S. and world shares dipped again, partly on concerns that Trump's tariff plan could spark a global trade war.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
