Ishmael

Kicking off the trade wars

Recommended Posts

Just now, warbird said:

You are kinda dense in this discussion.

You really, really should not use expressions like that.

It makes you sound almost as clueless as Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

You really, really should not use expressions like that.

It makes you sound almost as clueless as Trump.

WHY do you hate an expand8ng economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

WHY do you hate an expand8ng economy?

Inflation and higher taxes are not expansion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, warbird said:

WHY do you hate an expand8ng economy?

Why do you hate common sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

WHY do you hate an expand8ng economy?

Because it is inflationary if not backed by an increase in productivity.  Expanding an economy through added taxes reduces productivity.  The law of competitive advantage is real, but it takes an "ahah" moment for it to be seen by most people.

Let's face it, the US sucks at producing aluminum.  There are few mega-sources of power in the US accessible to the ocean.  Bauxite ore is brought imported.  Take a look at the map of British Columbia.  About the middle, just in from the coast is a huge lake called the Nechako.   It was made from smaller lakes that were dammed to create enough power to run the aluminum smelter at Kitimat.  Same for the area in Quebec.  If the US is to produce aluminum, it would have to dam up the Snake, or maybe the Missouri.  They can't touch the Columbia. The US would still have an issue in sending the power the width of a state.

So all the aluminum in the US is supposed to be provided from the US.  Where is the power coming from?  It will be a hell of a lot more expensive.  The Airbuses will roll along happily spending a lot less than Boeing for their aluminum, which will affect the sales of airplanes, and beer cans and cars and .........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Laker said:

Because it is inflationary if not backed by an increase in productivity.  Expanding an economy through added taxes reduces productivity.  The law of competitive advantage is real, but it takes an "ahah" moment for it to be seen by most people.

Let's face it, the US sucks at producing aluminum.  There are few mega-sources of power in the US accessible to the ocean.  Bauxite ore is brought imported.  Take a look at the map of British Columbia.  About the middle, just in from the coast is a huge lake called the Nechako.   It was made from smaller lakes that were dammed to create enough power to run the aluminum smelter at Kitimat.  Same for the area in Quebec.  If the US is to produce aluminum, it would have to dam up the Snake, or maybe the Missouri.  They can't touch the Columbia. The US would still have an issue in sending the power the width of a state.

So all the aluminum in the US is supposed to be provided from the US.  Where is the power coming from?  It will be a hell of a lot more expensive.  The Airbuses will roll along happily spending a lot less than Boeing for their aluminum, which will affect the sales of airplanes, and beer cans and cars and .........

Just wait till all those new coal fired power plants come on line.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Inflation and higher taxes are not expansion....

Jobs and ptoductionand expports = inflation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Laker said:

Because it is inflationary if not backed by an increase in productivity.  Expanding an economy through added taxes reduces productivity.  The law of competitive advantage is real, but it takes an "ahah" moment for it to be seen by most people.

Let's face it, the US sucks at producing aluminum.  There are few mega-sources of power in the US accessible to the ocean.  Bauxite ore is brought imported.  Take a look at the map of British Columbia.  About the middle, just in from the coast is a huge lake called the Nechako.   It was made from smaller lakes that were dammed to create enough power to run the aluminum smelter at Kitimat.  Same for the area in Quebec.  If the US is to produce aluminum, it would have to dam up the Snake, or maybe the Missouri.  They can't touch the Columbia. The US would still have an issue in sending the power the width of a state.

So all the aluminum in the US is supposed to be provided from the US.  Where is the power coming from?  It will be a hell of a lot more expensive.  The Airbuses will roll along happily spending a lot less than Boeing for their aluminum, which will affect the sales of airplanes, and beer cans and cars and .........

A brilliant analysis. I totally did not know that bit of info. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Laker said:

Expanding an economy through added taxes reduces productivity. 

How do added taxes expand an economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Laker said:

Because it is inflationary if not backed by an increase in productivity.  Expanding an economy through added taxes reduces productivity.  The law of competitive advantage is real, but it takes an "ahah" moment for it to be seen by most people.

Let's face it, the US sucks at producing aluminum.  There are few mega-sources of power in the US accessible to the ocean.  Bauxite ore is brought imported.  Take a look at the map of British Columbia.  About the middle, just in from the coast is a huge lake called the Nechako.   It was made from smaller lakes that were dammed to create enough power to run the aluminum smelter at Kitimat.  Same for the area in Quebec.  If the US is to produce aluminum, it would have to dam up the Snake, or maybe the Missouri.  They can't touch the Columbia. The US would still have an issue in sending the power the width of a state.

So all the aluminum in the US is supposed to be provided from the US.  Where is the power coming from?  It will be a hell of a lot more expensive.  The Airbuses will roll along happily spending a lot less than Boeing for their aluminum, which will affect the sales of airplanes, and beer cans and cars and .........

Alcoa used to have a plant in Central Washington that had 2 hydroelectric dams on the Columbia supplying electricity within 20 Miles.  Rock Island dam was a mile away.  Alcoa closed the plant down.  Everybody had a theory why.  Power was around $.02/ KWh.

My favorite theory was the Bonneville Power Authority was created by the California Power Market, and the rates they could command there also raised rates in central Washington State.  Locks on the Columbia at dams also fell by the wayside (too expensive!), so shipping product by water fell by the wayside.

The US talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk. Trump continues that great charade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, warbird said:

WHY do you hate an expand8ng economy?

Why do you hate intelligence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Dog said:

How do added taxes expand an economy?

Now you get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Why do you hate intelligence?

In warbirds case, I believe it's an allergy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

That there is a lot of words to inflict on the Mutt.

Couldn't you find some pictures?

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

How do added taxes expand an economy?

If the added taxes reduce deficits, they expand the economy.  The lost opportunity costs of not paying down the deficit are no where near the costs of not paying down the deficits or at least slowing its increase.  The present tax situation  provides additional cash in the short run.  Problem is that in the long term, it gets washed away by the tsunami of covering debt.  The "natural level" of the economy is set by the productivity of the country.  The amount of capital available does not.  This includes the forced repatriation of capital by corporations.  More capital available for a set amount of production just devalues the capital. 

So make everything in the US.  But what if other people do it better?  Such as produce cork cheaper and more efficiently?  You hamstring the US economy by making it buy more expensive and less quality cork.  The law of competitive advantage then makes it so that it is better to import that which you do not make.  The US has traded orange groves for condos, first in Southern California and now in Florida.  Taxes made gave the advantage to condos due to taxation policy regarding writing off mortgages.  In this case there was a preferential expansion of a segment of the economy only.  But it did expand the housing industry.

Now extend that concept internationally and look at the manoeuverabilty of a country like Switzerland or Norway with low or no sovereign debt.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2018 at 10:39 AM, Dog said:

How do added taxes expand an economy?

Same way as always.

Umm... you're talking about the economy for lawyers and lobbyists involved in the tariff tax, politicians, and their cronies, right?

For everyone else, the answer is the same as always: they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2018 at 12:30 PM, Laker said:

If the added taxes reduce deficits, they expand the economy.  The lost opportunity costs of not paying down the deficit are no where near the costs of not paying down the deficits or at least slowing its increase.  The present tax situation  provides additional cash in the short run.  Problem is that in the long term, it gets washed away by the tsunami of covering debt.  The "natural level" of the economy is set by the productivity of the country.  The amount of capital available does not.  This includes the forced repatriation of capital by corporations.  More capital available for a set amount of production just devalues the capital. 

So make everything in the US.  But what if other people do it better?  Such as produce cork cheaper and more efficiently?  You hamstring the US economy by making it buy more expensive and less quality cork.  The law of competitive advantage then makes it so that it is better to import that which you do not make.  The US has traded orange groves for condos, first in Southern California and now in Florida.  Taxes made gave the advantage to condos due to taxation policy regarding writing off mortgages.  In this case there was a preferential expansion of a segment of the economy only.  But it did expand the housing industry.

Now extend that concept internationally and look at the manoeuverabilty of a country like Switzerland or Norway with low or no sovereign debt.  

Nonsense, taxation moves dollars from the productive private sector where wealth is created to the public sector. It is true that in emerging economies increased taxation can be a positive for wealth creation if it provides necessary infrastructure and regulation but that is not the case in mature economies. 

The debt problem you describe is as much the result of spending as of taxation. Cutting spending, not increasing taxation is the more stimulative way to address that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Nonsense, taxation moves dollars from the productive private sector where wealth is created to the public sector. It is true that in emerging economies increased taxation can be a positive for wealth creation if it provides necessary infrastructure and regulation but that is not the case in mature economies. 

The debt problem you describe is as much the result of spending as of taxation. Cutting spending, not increasing taxation is the more stimulative way to address that problem.

Have you swallowed JZK and begun spouting his tedious line of simpleminded "economic" bullshit?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Have you swallowed JZK and begun spouting his tedious line of simpleminded "economic" bullshit?

-DSK

Let's try some baby steps.

Which sector, private or public, generates wealth and which consumes wealth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Let's try some baby steps.

Which sector, private or public, generates wealth and which consumes wealth?

Both. Private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Let's try some baby steps.

Which sector, private or public, generates wealth and which consumes wealth?

ask the owners of the companies who sell to the gov't. A hellofalot of wealth is being created. Or Stolen. Take your pick of verb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

ask the owners of the companies who sell to the gov't. A hellofalot of wealth is being created. Or Stolen. Take your pick of verb.

DuPont.

Establishment: 1802Edit

DuPont was founded in 1802 by Éleuthère Irénée du Pont, using capital raised in France and gunpowder machinery imported from France. The company was started at the Eleutherian Mills, on the Brandywine Creek, near Wilmington, Delaware, two years after he and his family left France to escape the French Revolution and religious persecutions against Huguenot Protestants. The company began as a manufacturer of gunpowder, as du Pont noticed that the industry in North America was lagging behind Europe. The company grew quickly, and by the mid-19th century had become the largest supplier of gunpowder to the United States military, supplying half the powder used by the Union Army during the American Civil War. The Eleutherian Mills site is now a museum and a National Historic Lan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

ask the owners of the companies who sell to the gov't. A hellofalot of wealth is being created. Or Stolen. Take your pick of verb.

But the wealth needed for government spending is not generated by the public sector, it originates in the private sector. Lark's claim that "added taxes expands an economy" is nonsense.

Raising taxes does not expand the economy, it just does not. I wish it did, we could all be filthy rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, RKoch said:

DuPont.

Establishment: 1802Edit

DuPont was founded in 1802 by Éleuthère Irénée du Pont, using capital raised in France and gunpowder machinery imported from France. The company was started at the Eleutherian Mills, on the Brandywine Creek, near Wilmington, Delaware, two years after he and his family left France to escape the French Revolution and religious persecutions against Huguenot Protestants. The company began as a manufacturer of gunpowder, as du Pont noticed that the industry in North America was lagging behind Europe. The company grew quickly, and by the mid-19th century had become the largest supplier of gunpowder to the United States military, supplying half the powder used by the Union Army during the American Civil War. The Eleutherian Mills site is now a museum and a National Historic Lan

Not sure I'm understanding your point, Koch - would you care to expound? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not sure I'm understanding your point, Koch - would you care to expound? 

DuPont family became one of US wealthiest, primarily through govt spending. Thought that was obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

But the wealth needed for government spending is not generated by the public sector, it originates in the private sector. Lark's claim that "added taxes expands an economy" is nonsense.

Raising taxes does not expand the economy, it just does not. I wish it did, we could all be filthy rich.

You should tell the President. Wait, you might want to tell yourself.  Tarriffs = Taxes

(BTW - I disagree with you, SPENDING impacts the economy. Some very good, some not. it's the overall LEVEL that matters - and so far, Trump and his congress are spending like drunken sailors)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

But the wealth needed for government spending is not generated by the public sector, it originates in the private sector. Lark's claim that "added taxes expands an economy" is nonsense.

Raising taxes does not expand the economy, it just does not. I wish it did, we could all be filthy rich.

Sitting in a traffic jam eating up many dollars per hour, I think that raising money through taxes to allow me not to have this traffic jam would be a good thing in that I could be earning money, not staring at a windshield.  Dog, do you not believe in the concept of a public good?  BTW, is the military actually a public good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

DuPont family became one of US wealthiest, primarily through govt spending. Thought that was obvious.

Actually, their great increase in value came two ways.  One was the creation of Dulux paint so that the completed cars did not have to spend two weeks for the paint to cure.  This was the first competitive advantage that lead to the rise of General Motors.  The other is that they were one of the first large companies to adopt modern accounting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Sitting in a traffic jam eating up many dollars per hour, I think that raising money through taxes to allow me not to have this traffic jam would be a good thing in that I could be earning money, not staring at a windshield.  Dog, do you not believe in the concept of a public good?  BTW, is the military actually a public good?

Of course...Its why the private sector supports a public sector. I pointed out earlier that increased government spending can be beneficial where inadequate infrastructure and regulation is limiting growth. Once those things are in place and maintained and updated, increasing government spending is a drag on the economy, it's where we are. That's not to say increasing spending beyond that point is bad, there may be good reasons to do it, but it's not stimulative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Laker said:

Actually, their great increase in value came two ways.  One was the creation of Dulux paint so that the completed cars did not have to spend two weeks for the paint to cure.  This was the first competitive advantage that lead to the rise of General Motors.  The other is that they were one of the first large companies to adopt modern accounting.

Not just modern accounting, but modern corporate structure.

Im not so sure about the paint ...in 1915 97% of sales were explosives (gunpowder, TNT, nitro). Sales in 1912 were $35 million, I assume they went way up during ww1, then way down, and back up to $43 million by 1926...perhaps it was then.  DuPont provided 40% of the explosives used by the Allies during ww2...that's a huge hunk of change. Don't forget Rayon, Nylon and several other materials in wide use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But does a private sector have to support a public sector or is it the other way around.  The capital doesn't care.  Things are hardly all in place, updated and maintained.  You have obviously never driven in Seattle traffic.  I think we come back to the statement that economics is the management of scarcity. There are many things on which to spend ones resources.  This can be either in a public or a private sector.  In some instances the public works better, in others the private.  As always the issue is with the pay forward part.  Putting money into a mortgage is usually a good pay forward.  Putting an all inclusive vacation on credit card, maybe not so much.   It would be interesting to have some form of analysis on what part of the debt is paying off investments in infrastructure and people that have turned out well vs those that haven't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Not just modern accounting, but modern corporate structure.

Im not so sure about the paint ...in 1915 97% of sales were explosives (gunpowder, TNT, nitro). Sales in 1912 were $35 million, I assume they went way up during ww1, then way down, and back up to $43 million by 1926...perhaps it was then.  DuPont provided 40% of the explosives used by the Allies during ww2...that's a huge hunk of change. Don't forget Rayon, Nylon and several other materials in wide use.

In the early twenties, the Ford plant had to put their cars out in a warehouse for 2 weeks for the paint to cure to the point where the cars could be shipped.  Dupont came up with a cellulose paint that only took 3 days to cure.  This was at the same point where Dupont was brought on board at GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

Sitting in a traffic jam eating up many dollars per hour, I think that raising money through taxes to allow me not to have this traffic jam would be a good thing in that I could be earning money, not staring at a windshield.  Dog, do you not believe in the concept of a public good?  BTW, is the military actually a public good?

Now you're talking collectivism you commie rat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Of course...Its why the private sector supports a public sector. I pointed out earlier that increased government spending can be beneficial where inadequate infrastructure and regulation is limiting growth. Once those things are in place and maintained and updated, increasing government spending is a drag on the economy, it's where we are. That's not to say increasing spending beyond that point is bad, there may be good reasons to do it, but it's not stimulative.

Trump disagrees with you. Says we need trillions in investment. You traitorous dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Have you swallowed JZK and begun spouting his tedious line of simpleminded "economic" bullshit?

Let's try some baby steps.

Which sector, private or public, generates wealth and which consumes wealth? 

Depends on what you call "wealth."

Here's a baby step you'll love: due to LACK OF REGULATION how much wealth disappeared in the 2008 banking crisis? Which sector made it evaporate? Which sector would have prevented it, given proper leadership?

OTOH the economy does not move by baby steps. It's not really all that complicated, but you have to be willing to consider concepts more complex than "gov't = bad"

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trade war could wipe out gains of GOP tax law, former top Trump economic adviser says

Source: The Washington Post




By Jeff Stein 
June 14 at 10:16 AM 

An escalating trade war could wipe out the benefits of the Republican tax law passed last fall, President Trump's former top economic adviser said Thursday. 

Gary Cohn, who served as Trump's director of the National Economic Council, said that retaliatory tariffs between countries could drive up inflation and prompt American consumers to take on more debt, possibly pushing the country into another economic downturn. 

“If you end up with a tariff battle, you will end up with price inflation, and you could end up with consumer debt,” Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive, said at a Washington Post event. “Those are all historic ingredients for an economic slowdown” 

Asked if the trade battle could erase the gains to the American economy from the tax law, Cohn said: "Yes, it could."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/14/trade-war-could-wipe-out-gains-of-gop-tax-law-former-top-trump-economist-says/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RKoch said:

Trade war could wipe out gains of GOP tax law, former top Trump economic adviser says

Source: The Washington Post




By Jeff Stein 
June 14 at 10:16 AM 

An escalating trade war could wipe out the benefits of the Republican tax law passed last fall, President Trump's former top economic adviser said Thursday. 

Gary Cohn, who served as Trump's director of the National Economic Council, said that retaliatory tariffs between countries could drive up inflation and prompt American consumers to take on more debt, possibly pushing the country into another economic downturn. 

“If you end up with a tariff battle, you will end up with price inflation, and you could end up with consumer debt,” Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive, said at a Washington Post event. “Those are all historic ingredients for an economic slowdown” 

Asked if the trade battle could erase the gains to the American economy from the tax law, Cohn said: "Yes, it could."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/14/trade-war-could-wipe-out-gains-of-gop-tax-law-former-top-trump-economist-says/

Even people who were stupid enough to be able to work for Trump in senior positions are too smart to buy his bullshit.

Is there anyone amongst his supporters who has an IQ greater than their age?

Greater than their height in inches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Even people who were stupid enough to be able to work for Trump in senior positions are too smart to buy his bullshit.

Is there anyone amongst his supporters who has an IQ greater than their age?

Greater than their height in inches?

Greater than Bone Spurs waistline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opening play.

Trump approves tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods

Source: CNN

An announcement is expected on Friday. The president's green light came after a meeting Thursday with top economic officials, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. 

The move represents a dramatic escalation of global tensions on trade just as Trump has picked fights with allies Canada, the European Union and Mexico over steel and aluminum. 

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/14/news/economy/trump-china-tariffs/index.html 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stocks tumble after Trump plans new tariffs on Chinese goods

Stocks dropped Friday after the Trump administration said it will impose a 25 percent charge on up to $50 billion in Chinese goods. 

The Dow fell more than 200 points, with Caterpillar and Boeing lagging. The S&P 500 dropped 0.4 percent as tech and industrials fell. The Nasdaq shed 0.35 percent. 

In a statement Friday, President Donald Trump said the measures would affect Chinese goods "that contain industrially significant technologies," without specifying those products. He added that the action comes "in light of China's theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices." 

Trump also said the U.S. would impose more tariffs on Chinese goods if China retaliates with duties of its own on American products. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/stocks-tumble-after-trump-plans-new-tariffs-on-chinese-goods/ar-AAyGErv?li=BBnbfcN 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RKoch said:

 

Stocks tumble after Trump plans new tariffs on Chinese goods

Stocks dropped Friday after the Trump administration said it will impose a 25 percent charge on up to $50 billion in Chinese goods. 

The Dow fell more than 200 points, with Caterpillar and Boeing lagging. The S&P 500 dropped 0.4 percent as tech and industrials fell. The Nasdaq shed 0.35 percent. 

In a statement Friday, President Donald Trump said the measures would affect Chinese goods "that contain industrially significant technologies," without specifying those products. He added that the action comes "in light of China's theft of intellectual property and technology and its other unfair trade practices." 

Trump also said the U.S. would impose more tariffs on Chinese goods if China retaliates with duties of its own on American products. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/stocks-tumble-after-trump-plans-new-tariffs-on-chinese-goods/ar-AAyGErv?li=BBnbfcN 

Which of course, the Chinese announced for instant imposition. The retaliatory tariffs are particularly focussed on exports from parts of the US that supported Trump in 2016 - farm states and midwest manufacturing states. Next step is up to the president and he is not smart enough and/or too stubborn to realize that he loses no matter what he does - more tariffs or sitting still with the current situation. Of course getting rid of all of these tariffs makes most sense, but by definition that would mean admitting that he doesn't know what he is doing, and also by definition, this would be impossible since he knows everything about everything. His supporters are fools who don't understand how the modern world actually works. The 2018 and 2020 elections will be interesting when the GOP gets little of the Big Business money they are used to having. Trump will have to sell a lot of MAGA hats - and they will cost 25% more because of the tariffs the boss has imposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Which of course, the Chinese announced for instant imposition. The retaliatory tariffs are particularly focussed on exports from parts of the US that supported Trump in 2016 - farm states and midwest manufacturing states. Next step is up to the president and he is not smart enough and/or too stubborn to realize that he loses no matter what he does - more tariffs or sitting still with the current situation. Of course getting rid of all of these tariffs makes most sense, but by definition that would mean admitting that he doesn't know what he is doing, and also by definition, this would be impossible since he knows everything about everything. His supporters are fools who don't understand how the modern world actually works. The 2018 and 2020 elections will be interesting when the GOP gets little of the Big Business money they are used to having. Trump will have to sell a lot of MAGA hats - and they will cost 25% more because of the tariffs the boss has imposed.

It's really all a cunning plan to add to the wealth of the 1%.

Look at it this way - a tariff is the same as a tax on consumption. Trump gave tax cuts to the masses and got the plaudits. Now he takes the money back by raising tariffs and the same people cheer because he's protecting US industry.

I'm happy - I just bought 4 stepper motors, drivers and power supplies for a desktop CNC milling machine, all made in China, for $320 AUD. Your tariffs increase my competitive edge in buying stuff.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Which of course, the Chinese announced for instant imposition. The retaliatory tariffs are particularly focussed on exports from parts of the US that supported Trump in 2016 - farm states and midwest manufacturing states. Next step is up to the president and he is not smart enough and/or too stubborn to realize that he loses no matter what he does - more tariffs or sitting still with the current situation. Of course getting rid of all of these tariffs makes most sense, but by definition that would mean admitting that he doesn't know what he is doing, and also by definition, this would be impossible since he knows everything about everything. His supporters are fools who don't understand how the modern world actually works. The 2018 and 2020 elections will be interesting when the GOP gets little of the Big Business money they are used to having. Trump will have to sell a lot of MAGA hats - and they will cost 25% more because of the tariffs the boss has imposed.

I'd be surprised if any of the Trump family's suppliers were affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s no-facts Twilight Zone is not the place for trade deals

Quote

In Singapore this week, Mr. Trump pivoted from his thoughts on Kim Jong-un, the brutal North Korean dictator, to his new No. 1 villain, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau, he warned, is “going to cost a lot of money for the people of Canada” after the Prime Minister had the temerity to talk about retaliating against U.S. tariffs on steel an aluminum.

In this fifth dimension inhabited by Mr. Trump and his cabal of apologist advisers, Canada must be punished for abusing “the people of our country, the workers, the farmers, the companies” with its unfair trade practices and massive trade surplus.

 

“We have to catch you a little bit,” he warned. “We have to have a little balance.”

The trouble is that Canada’s supposed trade surplus with the United States does not exist. Mr. Trump isn’t just embellishing facts; he’s making them up.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-trumps-no-facts-twilight-zone-is-no-place-to-be-doing-trade-deals/

Not that it matters in Trumpsylvania.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20180616_AMM914.png

 

Interesting map from the Economist on where/to the majority of exports from/to the US and Canada originate and are destined.  I wonder what Nevada exports to Switzerland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Senate republicans are growing a brain and spine, or if they're just starting to panic over midterms.

Senate votes to block Trump's ZTE deal

The Senate moved to block President Trump's deal to save Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE despite pushback from the White House. 

Senators passed an annual defense policy bill on Monday that included a provision keeping in place the penalties against ZTE despite a deal reached earlier this month by the Trump administration. 

In addition to keeping the Commerce Department penalties in place, the bill bans government agencies from buying or leasing telecommunications equipment and services from ZTE and Chinese telecom firm Huawei, as well as banning the government from providing loans to or subsidizing either company. 

The provision — spearheaded by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — sparked backlash from the White House, which is signaling it will try to remove it from the final bill. 

“The Administration will work with Congress to ensure the final NDAA conference report respects the separation of powers.” said Hogan Gidley, a deputy press secretary for the White House. 

GOP Sen. David Perdue (Ga.), a close ally of Trump's, tried unsuccessfully to remove the provision last week, arguing that the current Senate bill "would trample on the separation of powers and undercut the Trump administration's authority to impose these penalties." 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/392898-senate-votes-to-block-trumps-zte-deal?userid=229233 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now