Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The Trump trade wars?
Sunday, March 4, 2018 11:35 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote: Trump Offers No Tariff Exemptions In Conversations With World Leaders: Ross Update: some further soundbites from Ross as he makes the Sunday morning TV shows: ROSS: OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE MORE TO LOSE THAN U.S. IN TRADE WAR ROSS: RETALIATION THREATS VS U.S. COMPANIES A `ROUNDING ERROR' Finally, regarding Gary Cohn's future, Ross said that the former Goldman COO is not leaving the administration after failing to stop President Donald Trump from imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. "The president likes to hear every side of every argument," Ross said on ABC. "That way he's sure he's gotten all points of view. We've had lively discussion, but Gary Cohn, as far as I know, is certainly not going to walk out." As for potential retaliation, while some was expected, Ross said it would be trivial: “As to the idea of retaliation, sure they may well be some sort of retaliation, but the amounts that they're talking about are also pretty trivial." * * * US allies and trade partners - especially Canada, Japan and the EU - who were hoping that they would be exempt from Trump's steel and aluminum import tariffs
Quote:may be set for disappointment. Speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said that Trump has spoken to world leaders about his planned tariff hikes on steel and aluminum and is not considering any exemptions to the measure. "I know he's had conversations with a number of the world leaders," Ross said according to Reuters, adding that "the decision obviously is his, but as of the moment as far as I know he's talking about a fairly broad brush. I have not heard him describe particular exemptions just yet." Echoing his CNBC comments from Friday, Ross also played down the possible effects of the proposed tariffs on the U.S. economy: he said the total amount of tariffs the U.S. government is proposing is about $9 billion a year, a fraction of 1% of the economy. "So the notion that it would destroy a lot of jobs, raise prices, disrupt things, is wrong," Ross said; confirming a recent analysis from Barclays according to which the adverse impact from the tariffs would be negligible. Ross also dismissed European Union threats of retaliatory tariffs on flagship American products including Harley Davidson motorcycles, bourbon and Levi's jeans as trivial and a "rounding error." The commerce secretary said the Europeans were discussing a "pretty trivial amount of retaliatory tariffs, adding up to some $3 billion of goods."In our size economy that's a tiny, tiny fraction of 1 percent," Ross said. "So while it might affect an individual producer for a little while overall, it's not going to be much more than a rounding error." On Saturday, Trump also threatened European automakers with a tax on imports if the European Union retaliates. * * * Separately, speaking on CNN's State of the Union, White House trade advisor Peter Navarro whose recent promotion presaged last week's tariff announcement, repeated that Trump's decision to place steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports is for both national and economic security: “This is an action basically to protect our national security and economic security." Navarro - a long term China trade hawk - argued that Beijing is the source of the problem despite its low place on the list of exporters. The White House advisor said China has “tremendous overcapacity” that allows it to flood the market, which “ripples down.” As such, the tariffs are intended to support American-made products, although as we showed previously, China is not even in the top 10 nations from which the US imports steel. “We can’t have a country that can defend itself and prosper without an aluminum and steel industry,” Navarro said. Navarro also dodged a question about whether the United States will ultimately leave the World Trade Organization. Telling CNN's Jake Tapper that it was “a provocative question”, Navarro said that the WTO is a big part of the problem when it comes to trade. “A lot of the problem has been the World Trade Organization, which is over 160 countries, and a lot of them simply don’t like us and so we don’t get good results there,” Navarro said, and instead countered that while the U.S. is a free trader, it is also a fair trader, echoing a line from the president: "we are fair and reciprocal traders and the World Trade Organization I think needs to change with the times." * * * It is unlikely that either Ross' or Navarro's comments will mitigate an increasingly angry foreign response to what most now acknowledge is the start of global trade wars.
Sunday, March 4, 2018 4:57 PM
THGRRI
Sunday, March 4, 2018 8:48 PM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Monday, March 5, 2018 3:36 AM
SHINYGOODGUY
Monday, March 5, 2018 5:40 AM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I dunno. Going to have to wait that one out since we have no choice. Far to early to tell what the long term impact of that will be. I'm sure I could find just as many people on Fox News that say it's the best damn thing that ever happened to this country. That's the problem with "reporting" stuff you want to hear rather than objective truth.
Monday, March 5, 2018 6:03 AM
Quote: It happens that macroeconomics, a fancy word, can calculate ahead what comes next if Trump tries to close the trade gap by raising tariffs. The Macroeconomics of Trade War Paul Krugman, March 3, 2018 www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/opinion/the-macroeconomics-of-trade-war.html Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump The United States has an $800 Billion Dollar Yearly Trade Deficit because of our “very stupid” trade deals and policies. 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! 11:43 AM - Mar 3, 2018 It’s worth asking what would happen if Trump really did try to close the trade gap – it’s actually $500 billion, not $800 billion, but who’s counting – by imposing tariffs. The trade gap is currently running a bit shy of 3 percent of GDP, while imports are 15 percent of GDP. Exports are around 12 percent of GDP. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=US If the price elasticity of import demand is around 1, which is a typical estimate for the short-to-medium run, a 20 percent across the board tariff might, other things equal, be enough to close the gap. (price elasticity of import demand of 1 multiplied by 20% tariff multiplied by imports of 15% GDP = trade gap of 3% GDP) But other things would very much not be equal. Leave aside the issue of foreign retaliation, although that would be a very big deal in practice. Assume instead that the U.S. gets away with it, with no foreign response. Even so, this wouldn’t work out the way Trump imagines. You see, diverting demand equal to 3 percent of GDP from foreign to domestic products would not increase US output by 3 percent relative to what it would have been otherwise. Why? Because the US is close to full employment.
Quote: Maybe – maybe – we have another half-point of unemployment to go. But a 3 percent rise in output relative to trend would reduce unemployment about 1.5 percentage points. And that just isn’t going to happen.
Quote:What would happen instead is that the Fed would raise rates sharply to head off inflationary pressures (especially because a 20 percent tariff would directly raise prices by something like 3 percent.)
Quote:The rise in interest rates would have two big effects. First, it would squeeze interest-sensitive sectors: Trump’s friends in real estate would become very unhappy, as would anyone who is highly leveraged (hello, Jared.)
Quote: Second, it would drive up the dollar, inflicting severe harm on U.S. export sectors. Greetings, farmers of Iowa!
Quote: So protectionism wouldn’t do very much to reduce the trade deficit, even if other countries didn’t retaliate, and would inflict a lot of pain across the economy. And that’s without getting into the dislocations caused by disruption of supply chains. Add in the fact that other countries would retaliate. They’re already drawing up their target lists. . . .
Monday, March 5, 2018 8:20 AM
Monday, March 5, 2018 8:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: God, Krugman is an idiot.
Monday, March 5, 2018 9:19 AM
Monday, March 5, 2018 9:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: If Krugman knew everything, he wouldn't be shilling for cable news networks. He'd be as rich as Warren Buffett. I won't call him an idiot, but just because he says something doesn't mean it's true. He could be right. He might not be. I think comparing Krugman to Einstein is an apples to oranges thing...
Monday, March 5, 2018 10:21 AM
Monday, March 5, 2018 10:32 AM
Monday, March 5, 2018 11:04 AM
Monday, March 5, 2018 12:08 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Monday, March 5, 2018 12:12 PM
Quote:Einstein, another Nobel prize winner who worked at Princeton, same as Krugman, would get long letters from writers who knew General Relativity made erroneous assumptions and Einstein was an idiot. Those letter-writing Signyms would educate Einstein on his published mistakes. Krugman gets his share of insults from cranks, too. - SECOND
Monday, March 5, 2018 12:59 PM
Monday, March 5, 2018 1:56 PM
Monday, March 5, 2018 2:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Okay... so both Krugman and Einstein are Jewish and professed at the same school. What's your point? Is every white dude that goes to the same school on the same level? Every black woman? Every transgendered Asian? He's got some brains. He doesn't hold a candle to Einstein. lol... Hardly anybody does. He shouldn't feel bad about that.
Monday, March 5, 2018 2:58 PM
Quote:Krugman and Einstein had no reasons to lie about how the world works.
Monday, March 5, 2018 3:08 PM
Monday, March 5, 2018 4:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Okay... so both Krugman and Einstein are Jewish and professed at the same school. What's your point? Is every white dude that goes to the same school on the same level? Every black woman? Every transgendered Asian? He's got some brains. He doesn't hold a candle to Einstein. lol... Hardly anybody does. He shouldn't feel bad about that.Krugman and Einstein had no reasons to lie about how the world works. In stark contrast, there is Trump. He has been an ignorant trade hawk for decades. He’s feeling beleaguered on many fronts, and word is that his doctor has told him to eat fewer burgers. So there’s surely a lot of pent-up rage that he’s all too likely to take out on the world trading system. Will Trump back down from his urge to start a trade war? Nobody knows.
Monday, March 5, 2018 4:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Major GOP fundraiser calls on Trump to drop tariff plan WASHINGTON — A major Republican donor and businessman is asking President Donald Trump in a letter Monday to reconsider his decision to impose costly tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. "While I am a strong supporter of your administration's pro-growth policies and energy dominance agenda, imposing broad tariffs on steel risks unintended consequences that could jeopardize America's resurgent oil and natural gas industry," Dan Eberhart, CEO of Canary, an oilfield services company, wrote in the letter obtained by NBC News. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/major-gop-fundraiser-calls-on-trump-to-drop-tariff-plan/ar-BBJTJb8?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Monday, March 5, 2018 7:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Okay... so both Krugman and Einstein are Jewish and professed at the same school. What's your point? Is every white dude that goes to the same school on the same level? Every black woman? Every transgendered Asian? He's got some brains. He doesn't hold a candle to Einstein. lol... Hardly anybody does. He shouldn't feel bad about that.Krugman and Einstein had no reasons to lie about how the world works. In stark contrast, there is Trump. He has been an ignorant trade hawk for decades. He’s feeling beleaguered on many fronts, and word is that his doctor has told him to eat fewer burgers. So there’s surely a lot of pent-up rage that he’s all too likely to take out on the world trading system. Will Trump back down from his urge to start a trade war? Nobody knows. Please. Stop comparing Krugman to Einstein. Do you like dogs? Well... Hitler liked dogs too. Chances are that it's just a coincidence that you both like dogs, and nothing more could be read from that. Your argument has devolved from "They're both Jews and professors at the same school" to "Krugman and Einstein are both not like Trump, therefore Krugman must be right".
Quote:Ah yes, how far will Republicans go to stand up to Trump? Will they send him a stern letter? Or, being Congress and all, will they pass legislation removing Trump’s authority to unilaterally levy new tariffs? Congress mostly leaves tariffs up to presidents, but as the Washington Post delicately puts it, “Congressional leaders believe that approach has worked well — until now.” Still, if you go to war with Trump, you have to expect you’re going to get a real war. Trump could easily blow up so badly that he’d decide to engage in a scorched-earth campaign against the traitors in the Republican Party, leading to a tidal wave of losses in the November midterms unprecedented in human history. I wouldn’t put it past him. So I guess there’s that for Paul Ryan to think about.
Monday, March 5, 2018 9:10 PM
Monday, March 5, 2018 11:40 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Mueller investigation is expanding. Think pay to play UAE. If this tariff thing continues the republicans may see Trump as a major hindrance to them being reelected. If he destroys or even slows the economy it is over for them. That makes them less likely to protect him judicial appointments or not. It then becomes possible they'll join with the democrats to remove him. Soon please...Trump is looking back to the past, the 18 hundreds as the future. Mining coal and steel to advance this country. China is looking 50 years into the future. AI, solar and so on.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: Nope. Not a big believer in experts. Especially when it comes to predicting the future. I suggest you do as Sigs suggested and take a look at his overall track record. I'm willing to bet that he's right about as often as the Weather man is.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:14 AM
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 8:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I'm happy about the tariffs. If for no other reason than all of the politicians hate them, and the media as well. I've got to back pretty much anything that is making powerful people on both sides of the corrupt aisle shit themselves.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: I'm happy about the tariffs. If for no other reason than all of the politicians hate them, and the media as well. I've got to back pretty much anything that is making powerful people on both sides of the corrupt aisle shit themselves.How happy are you gonna be if Trump does a 180? What if he says "Never mind" about tariffs? I am all for Trump going full speed with every single one of his promises: deport 11.3 million illegals. (I dare him to finish it in the next 3 years. Dump the Dreamers, Trump). Build the Texas/Mexico wall. (Finish it, Trump and in a hurry) Go to war with North Korea over its nukes (Blow up North and South Korea, you pussy Trump. Do it now!) Invade Iran (they want an Arab nuke! Stop them now!) Pass a Federal law requiring handguns in every teachers' purse or briefcase (Do it, Trump, or are you chicken?) And while Trump is making all his dreams come true, could he please reduce the tax to 0% on incomes higher than $1,000,000? That's my dream. It's a great idea! The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: As I said before, I like this one because the politicians on both sides unanimously show their opposition to it, as well as the MSM and rich business owners with influence.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 1:01 PM
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 1:13 PM
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 9:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: As I said before, I like this one because the politicians on both sides unanimously show their opposition to it, as well as the MSM and rich business owners with influence.6ixStringJack, let’s do it and show those eggheads that Signym and you know more than they do, that history books are baloney! The consensus view among eggheads and economic historians is that the passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression. The Act and following retaliatory tariffs by America's trading partners were major factors of the reduction of American exports and imports by more than half during the Depression. #MAGA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act Smoot-Hawley passed with the support of 208 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Even way back then, the Republicans were more in favor of higher tariffs than Democrats. The consensus view among economists and economic historians is that the passage of the Smoot–Hawley Tariff exacerbated the Great Depression,[16] although there is disagreement as to how much. In the popular view, the Smoot–Hawley Tariff was a leading cause of the depression.[17][18] However, many economists hold the opinion that the tariff act did not greatly worsen the great depression. According to Paul Krugman, "Where protectionism really mattered was in preventing a recovery in trade when production recovered." He cites a report by Barry Eichengreen and Douglas Irwin: Figure 1 in that report shows trade and production dropping together from 1929 to 1932, but production increasing faster than trade from 1932 to 1937. The authors argue that adherence to the gold standard forced many countries to resort to tariffs, when instead they should have devalued their currencies.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 8:07 AM
Quote: The tariff history of the United States spans from colonial times to present. The first tariff law passed by the U.S. Congress, acting under the then recently ratified Constitution, was the Tariff of 1789. Its purpose was to generate revenue for the federal government (to run the government and to pay the interest on its debt), and also to act as a protective barrier around domestic industries. An Import tax was collected by treasury agents before goods could be landed at U.S. ports. Tariffs have historically served a key role in the nation's foreign trade policy. They were the greatest (approaching 95% at times) source of federal revenue until the Federal income tax began after 1913. For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20% on foreign imports ... According to Michael Lind, protectionism was America's de facto policy from the passage of the Tariff of 1816 to World War II, "switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out" by the war. It has been argued that one of the underlying motivations for the American Revolution itself was a desire to industrialize, and reverse the trade deficit with Britain, which had grown by a factor of ten in the space of a few decades, from £67,000 (1721–30) to £739,000 (1761–70). According to Paul Bairoch, since the end of the 18th century, the United States has been "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism". In fact, the United States never adhered to free trade until 1945. A very protectionist policy was adopted as soon as the presidency of George Washington by Alexander Hamilton, the first US Secretary of the Treasury from 1789 to 1795 and author of the text Report on Manufactures which called for customs barriers to allow American industrial development and to help protect infant industries, including bounties (subsidies) derived in part from those tariffs.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 9:41 AM
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:52 AM
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 12:13 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: SECOND ... American steel producers agree that . . .
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 12:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: SECOND ... American steel producers agree that . . .If you are correct, then Trump must raise those tariffs. But Trump might be bullshitting: HOUSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said on Wednesday he was “not sure” if President Donald Trump had made up his mind about levying tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. www.reuters.com/article/us-ceraweek-energy-perry/u-s-energy-secretary-perry-unsure-if-trumps-views-on-tariffs-are-final-idUSKCN1GJ2FO I've always wanted Trump to keep his promises: 25% tariffs, lock up Hillary, deport all 11.3 million illegals including the Dreamers, arrest those millions of voters who voted illegally for Hillary, take away N Korean nukes, reduce the trade imbalance with China to zero, build the Texas/Mexico wall, etc. But not because these are good ideas. I want to see what happens (I think I know what will happen), and I very much want to see how Trump denies what happened didn't work out as well as he dreamed. Got an example. Trump wimped out on a long-term promise this morning: Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump China has been asked to develop a plan for the year of a One Billion Dollar reduction in their massive Trade Deficit with the United States. Our relationship with China has been a very good one, and we look forward to seeing what ideas they come back with. We must act soon! 9:10 AM-Mar 7, 2018 The problem here is that in Trump’s first year in office, the US-China trade deficit was $375.2 billion - well over $1 billion per day. That was a hefty increase from the $347 billion deficit we ran into 2016. Trump wants us to know that he is getting tough and demanding a plan to reduce the US-China bilateral trade deficit by a measly $1 billion out of $375 billion. Oh, I forgot that Trump wants the Chinese to give him ideas on how to reduce trade with China. I think that is Trump's responsibility, not China's.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018 2:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by THGRRI: Trump may change his mind after the elections in Pennsylvania. That's what the tariffs may be about.
Thursday, March 8, 2018 7:08 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: SECOND ... American steel producers agree that this helps them.
Thursday, March 8, 2018 7:21 PM
Thursday, March 8, 2018 9:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK: lol... "remarkably clean", so long as we're taking it up the arse and nobody is complaining.
Friday, March 9, 2018 9:02 AM
Friday, March 9, 2018 9:10 AM
Monday, March 12, 2018 10:07 PM
Tuesday, March 13, 2018 4:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Here’s what Navarro told Bloomberg recently: “My function, really, as an economist is to try to provide the underlying analytics that confirm Trump's intuition. And his intuition is always right in these matters.” Wow. Since when has it become acceptable to declare that Dear Leader is infallible?
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:06 PM
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:15 PM
Quote:Picking a fight with Europe, of all places, seems strange. - SECOND
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:Picking a fight with Europe, of all places, seems strange. - SECOND Not at all. The EU has a huge competitive advantage over the USA, because they are living under the security umbrella of NATO, paid for and maintained by the USA taxpayer. There is a reason why the military takes up 3+% of our GDP and approx 1.5% of EU GDP, and why EU nations have healthcare and education, and we don't.
Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:10 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL