Jump to content

Who really believes tariffs are good business


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Just how dense are you? In the US at least wage stagnation began at the same time trade globalization took off. 

Really. So let's start at bottom of your fairy tale of unknown and work upwards..

1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Must of if was due to the crushing of the labor movement

whole industries saw collapsing wages (meat packing), as pay stopped going up along with productivity 

Really. You say wage stagnation using meat packing as an example. 

1960/70's the US a nett beef exporter.

The container and container ship and then refrigerated container was invented.

Today the largest IMPORTER of beef in the world is the US. Top suppliers being Canada and Australia and under free trade agreements. 

Please explain how 50 years of meat packing wages is connected with that global trade outcome??.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agreed - the corporations probably didn't expect to get ripped off as they did, and no argument the Chinese have engaged in industrial espionage on a huge scale. Tariffing their products incorpor

My biggest and quite real complaints about China are: their own protectionism their rampant IP theft As for globalism itself, that ship sailed quite awhile ago. The invention of

Wrong! Guess who's price went up? BOTH! I had a $10k budget.  the import was $7500, the domestic were $10k, so, I was going to buy domestic. The DOMESTIC is going up, estimate is 1

Posted Images

1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Just how dense are you? In the US at least wage stagnation began at the same time trade globalization took off. 

Must of if was due to the crushing of the labor movement. 

whole industries saw collapsing wages (meat packing), as pay stopped going up along with productivity 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Of course I erred in writing that that "lost" purchasing power - actually it was stolen from them 

Try reading “trade wars are class wars” by Klein & pettis 

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

Just how dense are you? In the US at least wage stagnation began at the same time trade globalization took off. 

Must of if was due to the crushing of the labor movement. 

whole industries saw collapsing wages (meat packing), as pay stopped going up along with productivity 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Of course I erred in writing that that "lost" purchasing power - actually it was stolen from them 

Yes, and replaced by debt.  That is quite clear.  However, I do not think that tariffs are a good tool to use to bring about equity.  It is a tool that punishes the worker, not the influence the consumer. When one tariffs a commodity, overall production of that commodity within the tariff area becomes constrained, to everyone's detriment, consumer and producer.  Products in different sections of the marketing matrix are different.  ( Marketing matrix of significance of purchase vs involvement in purchase.  Do you really care about the brand of your frozen peas?)

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

Really. So let's start at bottom of your fairy tale of unknown and work upwards..

Really. You say wage stagnation using meat packing as an example. 

1960/70's the US a nett beef exporter.

The container and container ship and then refrigerated container was invented.

Today the largest IMPORTER of beef in the world is the US. Top suppliers being Canada and Australia and under free trade agreements. 

Please explain how 50 years of meat packing wages is connected with that global trade outcome??.

Can we agree on two facts? 

1. the global trade regime has resulted in lower consumer prices 

2. the global trade regime has also coincided with stagnate or declining wages for the bottom 40% of US workers. 

And our lowest paid 40% often have no health insurance, few or no sick days, crap for paid vacations; 

they really are not doing very well. 

You're pretty smart, but why the rudeness? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Can we agree on two facts? 

1. the global trade regime has resulted in lower consumer prices 

You don't mind moving the goal posts along. :lol: Anyway I will indulge 

You say global trade = lower consumer prices.

What is the link to show that????

Someone must have written something if that is universally accepted. A graph will do. 

29 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

2. the global trade regime has also coincided with stagnate or declining wages for the bottom 40% of US workers. 

And our lowest paid 40% often have no health insurance, few or no sick days, crap for paid vacations; 

they really are not doing very well

"Trade coinciding with"?

That is like saying breathing coincides with being alive??

I will not dispute an income inequality and slow growth in the living standards of low- and moderate-income Americans over the last 50 years.

However a huge leap to say global trade has led to that??? You haven't provided any link to that at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

^^^^^^^^ there is a study which shows each US household has benefited by $8k per year from international trade since the 70's.

Jeez Dude, the claim of trade = lower consumer prices was made by YOU, not me. (see above) 

Maybe it is your turn to provide a source. 

12 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

You don't mind moving the goal posts along. :lol: Anyway I will indulge 

You say global trade = lower consumer prices????

Pretty sure I am right about this since I am not due to start 

pounding Cabernet for several more hours. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Jeez Dude, the claim of trade = lower consumer prices was made by YOU, not me. (see above) 

Maybe it is your turn to provide a source. 

I didn't say $8k household was a reduction in consumer costs.  have no idea as I can't cite it being in a vid supporting WTO. There are lots of papers  indicating incomes raised and poverty reduced by global trade. Likewise many saying it has also introduced inequality in some countries.

4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Pretty sure I am right about this..

I didn't say global trade didn't lower consumer prices. 

You missed the important one. 

4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

2. the global trade regime has also coincided with stagnate or declining wages for the bottom 40% of US workers

And our lowest paid 40% often have no health insurance, few or no sick days, crap for paid vacations; 

they really are not doing very well. 

 

I would have trouble making that case when other reasons are more compelling.

For instance matching output, pay at top of labour market has gone up it is that bottom hasn't as minimum wage hasn't kept up, decline in unions, excessive unemployment, even excessive employment but low productivity due to low mechanisation/automation, global supply chains mixing low and high cost labour, wage theft, undocumented workers etc etc. That a lot easier than saying for instance China joining WTO in early 2000's is to blame when many wage disparity signs were there 20 years before and today 20 years later are still there. In some sectors exports to China have raised incomes in that last 20 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frogman56 said:

Out to the side a bit, anyone think that declining educational standards in the US are a significant part of the low end wage stanation or diminution?

Plus the increase in educational standards of others from around 2000, many educated the US and where that time is also the peak for college graduate wages that have stagnated since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't mind moving the goal posts along. :lol: Anyway I will indulge 

You say global trade = lower consumer prices.

What is the link to show that????

Someone must have written something if that is universally accepted. A graph will do. 

 

 

Riccardo's law of comparative advantage can be derived from first principles.  Especially with commodities.  Try wheat.

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

You don't mind moving the goal posts along. :lol: Anyway I will indulge 

You say global trade = lower consumer prices.

What is the link to show that????

Someone must have written something if that is universally accepted. A graph will do. 

 

 

Riccardo's law of comparative advantage can be derived from first principles.  Especially with commodities.  Try wheat.

Well, I dunno if it can be derived from first principles, but global trade = lower consumer prices is generally accepted economic dogma. Production is moved to where costs are lowest, that coupled with purchasing parity (tendency of values to equalize across borders) results in lower prices.

Now, what it doesn't address is the reduced incomes and the artificial lowering of costs which is very often contemporaneous with lowering consumer prices. Or how national banks are supposed to deal deflationary pressure.

Personally, I tend to think that increased trade is good as long as it's not due to gov't subsidy or bypassing things like anti-pollution regulation. We all have to share the air.

The USA has basically given businesses a relatively free hand in everything except tort reform, and that one thing is driving a lot of business out.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

I didn't say $8k household was a reduction in consumer costs.  have no idea as I can't cite it being in a vid supporting WTO. There are lots of papers  indicating incomes raised and poverty reduced by global trade. Likewise many saying it has also introduced inequality in some countries.

I didn't say global trade didn't lower consumer prices. 

Thanks for being rude . .  

This is an important discussion to have - I think. 

I'll get back to you in the morning - I have to wait till the Cabernet wears off. 

Great sail tonight - and a most amazing sunset. 

Sorta like this, only better  . . 

Elevation of W Park St, Sandusky, OH, USA - Topographic Map - Altitude Map

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

...Personally, I tend to think that increased trade is good as long as it's not due to gov't subsidy or bypassing things like anti-pollution regulation. We all have to share the air.

The USA has basically given businesses a relatively free hand in everything except tort reform, and that one thing is driving a lot of business out.

^^^^^^^^^^ This.

It is why a US/EU FTA or even re-entry to Trans Pacific won't happen until there is a major trade policy shift in America. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jack_sparrow said:

I don't misquote or misappropriate. If you don't like being pulled up on that too bad. 

Dagnabbit !!  Very sorry, I meant to write the opposite !! 

i.e., "Thanks for not being rude" 

I hold that Cabernet totally responsible. 

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

Well, I dunno if it can be derived from first principles, but global trade = lower consumer prices is generally accepted economic dogma. Production is moved to where costs are lowest, that coupled with purchasing parity (tendency of values to equalize across borders) results in lower prices.

Now, what it doesn't address is the reduced incomes and the artificial lowering of costs which is very often contemporaneous with lowering consumer prices. Or how national banks are supposed to deal deflationary pressure.

Personally, I tend to think that increased trade is good as long as it's not due to gov't subsidy or bypassing things like anti-pollution regulation. We all have to share the air.

The USA has basically given businesses a relatively free hand in everything except tort reform, and that one thing is driving a lot of business out.

- DSK

That is not what Riccardo is all about.  It is about maximizing efficiency of production, not lower prices.  It also does not deal with what happens to the lower productivity producer.  Lets look back to when Bretton Woods was first implemented.  In the late forties, look at the condition of the great economies of the world.  Japan, Germany, Italy, Great Britain.  The US was the last man standing.  It was given economic dominance in the world.  The US dollar became the common currency.  Before it was the pound.  It couldn't help but create the golden age of the 50s and 60s that L'Orange wishes to return to.  But, then the tigers of Asia started roaring.  Japan is a high cost efficient producer now.  China emerged as an economic power. The other economies started to contribute.  However, the US, the dominant consumer market in the world started sharing and there were some industries that it just could not keep up.  Look at aluminum and softwood lumber.  Thank goodness for Silicon Valley. Then along came 2008.  It did a lot more damage than I think is acknowledged. What 2008 did is damage the US dollar as the common currency and is being felt today.  Rather than adjust to changing times, the US economy seems to try to keep on with the old way of business that arose from Bretton Woods.  Remember that the fall of the Chinese empire in the early 1400s was due to becoming inward looking, rejecting change and isolating itself from the rest of the world.

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

That is not what Riccardo is all about.  It is about maximizing efficiency of production, not lower prices.  It also does not deal with what happens to the lower productivity producer.  Lets look back to when Bretton Woods was first implemented.  In the late forties, look at the condition of the great economies of the world.  Japan, Germany, Italy, Great Britain.  The US was the last man standing.  It was given economic dominance in the world.  The US dollar became the common currency.  Before it was the pound.  It couldn't help but create the golden age of the 50s and 60s that L'Orange wishes to return to.  But, then the tigers of Asia started roaring.  Japan is a high cost efficient producer now.  China emerged as an economic power. The other economies started to contribute.  However, the US, the dominant consumer market in the world started sharing and there were some industries that it just could not keep up.  Look at aluminum and softwood lumber.  Thank goodness for Silicon Valley. Then along came 2008.  It did a lot more damage than I think is acknowledged. What 2008 did is damage the US dollar as the common currency and is being felt today.  Rather than adjust to changing times, the US economy seems to try to keep on with the old way of business that arose from Bretton Woods.  Remember that the fall of the Chinese empire in the early 1400s was due to becoming inward looking, rejecting change and isolating itself from the rest of the world.

I apologize for not being more clear. My post was not about Riccardo.

FWIW I agree with you. However I think the all benefited from Bretton Woods even if the USA benefited most in the end. Don't under estimate the impact of oil, which the US exported until the early 1960s, and Gr Britain developed the North Sea reserves in the 1980s.

Due to utter selfishness and stupidity, the USA has thrown away it's position in the wold.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a very good doco on tariffs and trade from Deutsche Welle 

Were I still in the teaching biz, I would totally use it in my classes. 

The film is especially critical of Germany and the EU for dumping poultry/veggies on African countries and thus destroying local farmers & businesses 

Similarly, under the US hammer, Nafta forced Mexico to accept corn imports from the North 

Bottom line for me - third world countries should be allowed to use tariffs 

Here is one of the many comments . . 

I usually do research connected to issues like the one explained here, so I have done my fair share of readings about free trade and else, and this is by far the most non-specialist friendly explanation I have seen regarding free trade. Loved that it was not approached from a leftist or rightist approach, just a critical one. Keep up the good work.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Relationship between trade openness and poverty. The more countries open up to trade the more poverty falls. That and more here.

Learning to Love Trade Again -Time to Think Small

 

Eg-WoQIWsAEWJkQ.png

You are right there.  However, to make it work requires a bit of self discipline on the part of trading partners.  This is not always there and constitutes a free market failure.  I think that tariffs as a response to commercial aggression are reasonable, but are a sad statement.  There are situations where they don't make economic sense.  An aluminum smelter in Kentucky pays a lot for it's energy and is far from bauxite deposits.  Raising the price of aluminum in the US to the point that the Kentucky smelter is profitable saves US jobs, but is it an overall positive for the US economy.  Would they not be better used recycling aluminum cans, something the US is good at or have them exclusively supply the US military for security reasons?

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

I think that tariffs as a response to commercial aggression are reasonable, but are a sad statement.  

Opponents of trade and those that bang on about trade balance deficits in the US forget the U.S. became the world’s import powerhouse, growing from 10% to 15% of GDP 1985 to 2018.

Likewise, in Japan imports went from 11% in 1985 to 18% in 2018 and the EU also a similar trend with imports as a share of GDP rising from 12% in 2002 to 16% in 2018.

Imports are good not a bad thing.. They increase productivity and drive down inflation.

In general, economic growth in the U.S. is associated with growth in imports, with similar patterns in the EU and Japan.

Beware Coronavirus shrinking deficits along with the economy and protectionists grabbing hold of that.

IMG_20200905_023050.jpg

IMG_20200905_023132.jpg

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

Opponents of trade and those that bang on about trade balance deficits in the US forget the U.S. became the world’s import powerhouse, growing from 10% to 15% of GDP 1985 to 2018.

Likewise, in Japan imports went from 11% in 1985 to 18% in 2018 and the EU also a similar trend with imports as a share of GDP rising from 12% in 2002 to 16% in 2018.

Imports are good not a bad thing.. They increase productivity and drive down inflation.

In general, economic growth in the U.S. is associated with growth in imports, with similar patterns in the EU and Japan.

Beware Coronavirus shrinking deficits along with the economy and protectionists grabbing hold of that.

IMG_20200905_023050.jpg

IMG_20200905_023132.jpg

I wasn't really thinking of the US.  More in terms of developing economies trying to diversify.  The US is a special situation in that we have given it an enhanced position in the world in exchange for relative political stability for the last 80 years or so.  

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

 I wasn't really thinking of the US.  More in terms of developing economies trying to diversify....

Remember under WTO rules they get tarrif exemptions for their exports. Guess which large importing country doesn't like that. :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/8/2020 at 4:44 AM, Cacoethesic Tom said:
On 8/7/2020 at 11:13 PM, Mid said:

Canada to impose $3.6B in tariffs in response to Trump's move against Canadian aluminum

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/freeland-aluminum-imports-tariffs-trump-1.5677757

More attempts to win the foot-shooting contest. Sigh.

I guess this thread needs some counterpoint, so here's some Koch-$ponsored Trump cheerleading on the topic:

Trump's New Tariffs on Canadian Aluminum Are Justifiable

I'm glad to report that the foot shooting contest has been cancelled, or maybe just postponed.
 

Quote

 

One of the more bizarre episodes of President Donald Trump's trade war—and there are plenty of contenders—came to an abrupt end on Tuesday afternoon when the United States backed down from a threat to impose new tariffs on aluminum imports from Canada.

"This was a day where common sense prevailed," Chrystia Freeland, Canada's deputy prime minister, said at a press conference on Tuesday where she announced that Canada would also drop its plans to retaliate against the threatened tariffs.

Indeed, much of American trade policy over the past few years has been marked by a shortage of common sense. But slapping new tariffs on aluminum imported from Canada—and doing so just weeks after the United States and Canada (and Mexico) signed a new trade agreement—was always completely indefensible.

...

 

Pretty sure they meant to type "justifiable" and not "indefensible" there. (with apologies for the Koch-$ponsored Trump cheerleading, as always.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2020 at 2:53 AM, jack_sparrow said:

This is like walking into a Hotel breakfast room full of people who are all still drunk from the night before.

If you're going to argue with AJ - get used to the feeling. He's a retired 'political science' professor, what more do you need to know?

He's never had to actually do anything or produce anything that would sell in a free & open market in his life.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

If you're going to argue with AJ - get used to the feeling. He's a retired 'political science' professor, what more do you need to know?

He's never had to actually do anything or produce anything that would sell in a free & open market in his life.

FKT

That was harsh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

If you're going to argue with AJ - get used to the feeling. He's a retired 'political science' professor, what more do you need to know?

He's never had to actually do anything or produce anything that would sell in a free & open market in his life.

I've posted a number of comments on this thread, and stand by all of them except that unfortunate one little mistake due totally to the Cabernet. (I apologized) 

The exchange has been mostly pretty civil. 

You could point out where you disagree with the points I have raised, and explain why - but instead you choose to disparage and demean. 

And your second assertion is totally out the Wazoo, as well as a lie. 

You don't know me at all, so your charge of my not "producing" anything, absent any evidence at all, shows a reckless disregard for the truth on your part. 

Your behavior here is that of a petulant juvenile. 

Grow up. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Are Ya tired of winning yet.

 

Trump steel tariffs bring job losses to swing state Michigan

BY RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, REUTERS - 7:28 AM ET 10/9/2020TOP NEWS

 

 

 

 

CHICAGO(Reuters) - President Donald Trump promised a new dawn for the struggling U.S. steel industry in 2016, and the lure of new jobs in Midwestern states including Michigan helped him eke out a surprise election win.

Four years later, Great Lakes Works - once among the state's largest steel plants - has shut down steelmaking operations and put 1,250 workers out of a job. A year before the June layoffs, plant owner United States Steel Corp ( X ) 

Loading...

called off a plan to invest $600 million in upgrades amid deteriorating market conditions.

Trump's strategy centered on shielding U.S. steel mills from foreign competition with a 25% tariff imposed in March 2018. He also promised to boost steel demand through major investments in roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

But higher steel prices resulting from the tariffs dented demand from the Michigan-based U.S. auto industry and other steel consumers. And the Trump administration has never followed through on an infrastructure plan.

Michigan's heavy reliance on the steel and auto industries puts Trump's trade policy in sharp focus ahead of the Nov. 3 presidential election in this battleground state. Democrats say they aim to recapture the votes of blue-collar workers they lost to Trump four years ago - one key factor in his victory over Hillary Clinton. Trump won Michigan by less than one percent of the statewide vote total. The competition for the votes of often-unionized manufacturing workers - who historically have voted Democratic - will be just as fierce in the battleground states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, political analysts say.

Biden leads Trump in Michigan by 8 percentage points, according to a Reuters/Ipsos state opinion poll of likely voters conducted from Sept. 29 - Oct. 6, widening his lead from a few weeks earlier.

Nationally, the steel industry has been shedding jobs for the past year - since before the wider economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic - and now employs 1,900 fewer workers than it did when Trump took office, according to U.S. Labor Department data. (For a graphic on steel jobs, click https://tmsnrt.rs/2SRIEaF)

While the tariffs failed to boost overall steel employment, economists say they created higher costs for major steel consumers - killing jobs at companies including Detroit-based automakers General Motors Co ( GM ) 

Loading...

and Ford Motor Co. ( F ) 

Loading...

Nationally, steel and aluminum tariffs resulted in at least 75,000 job losses in metal-using industries by the end of last year, according to an analysis by Lydia Cox, a Ph.D. candidate in economics at Harvard University, and Kadee Russ, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis. In all, they estimated, the trade war had caused a net loss of 175,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs by mid-2019.

In Michigan, steelmakers have served layoff notices to nearly 2,000 workers since the tariff took effect, according to a Reuters analysis of the notices steel companies filed with the state. The state's primary metals manufacturing industry, which includes iron and steel mills, employed about 7,300 fewer workers in August than in March 2018, when Trump announced metal tariffs, according to data from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

The steel-industry setbacks account for just a fraction of the job losses in Michigan's manufacturing sector - which now employs 55,100 fewer workers than it did when Trump took office in January 2017, U.S. Labor Department data shows. The state's automotive industry accounted for 35% of the manufacturing job losses, according to the St. Louis Fed.

Whether such statistics will change swing-state voters' minds remains to be seen. Bill Wischman, a financial manager at a Ford manufacturing facility in Plymouth, Michigan, says Trump has done more to protect U.S. manufacturing than any of his predecessors.

"He has given a whole-hearted effort," said Wischman, 51, a Republican who voted for Trump in 2016.

Bob Kemper, grievance committee chairman at Great Lakes Works' chapter of the United Steelworkers (USW) Union, put the blame squarely on Trump for the job losses.

"I don't see any policy that helped us," said Kemper, who is backing Biden. "We are losing our damn jobs here."

The 1.2 million-member United Steelworkers (USW) Union, which represents U.S. manufacturing workers in many industries, supported Clinton in the last election and will again back the Democrat this time. Kemper acknowledged that many of his co-workers voted for Trump in 2016 but says that support has diminished along with the fortunes of Michigan's steel industry.

Trump made similar 2016 campaign promises to revive the ailing coal industry by rolling back environmental regulations. But that industry's employment has dropped 9% since 2016, to about 46,000, as 66 coal plants - nearly a fifth of the U.S. total - have closed. The economic losses come despite the administration's moves to ease restrictions including limits on carbon emissions and dumping coal waste into streams.

The Republican party in Michigan did not respond to requests for comment. White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro did not answer questions from Reuters on the data showing job losses in steel and manufacturing.

When U.S. Steel idled Great Lakes Works, which primarily serves the automotive industry, it cited weak demand, lower steel prices and a new corporate strategy to invest in more cost-efficient technology. In May, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc ( CLF ) said it was closing its hot strip steel mill and some other operations in the Detroit area and laying off 343 workers. It cited "rapidly deteriorating business conditions."

A Cleveland-Cliffs ( CLF ) 

Loading...

spokeswoman did not answer questions about the impact of Trump's trade policy on its business.

U.S. Steel defends Trump's tariffs. Company spokeswoman Meghan Cox said the policy helps "ensure the strength of America's steelmaking capacity during this pandemic."

The firm's shares have plunged about 82% since the beginning of March 2018 - the month Trump announced steel tariffs - compared with a 28% increase in the S&P 500 during the same period. U.S. steel prices are now 33% below their peak in May 2018 but remain 21% higher than the global market price because of tariffs - a gap that hurts the competitiveness of U.S. companies who fashion products from domestic steel.

"No matter what the tariff is, you cannot sell something if there is limited demand," said Ned Hill, a professor of economic development at the Ohio State University.

'THRIVING' ENTERPRISE

Trump said at a Pennsylvania rally in August last year - as steel companies were grappling with falling demand and prices - that his tariff has turned a "dead" business into a "thriving" enterprise.

The tariffs did initially benefit companies including U.S. Steel and Nucor by limiting competition and boosting prices. In late 2018, U.S. Steel workers secured a cumulative 14% wage increase over a four-year period.

The tariffs also led to investment, said Jeff Ferry, chief economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a bipartisan trade group. Older coal-fired plants such as Great Lakes Works closed because of outdated technology, he said.

"We are not doing this to save individual jobs" in the short term, Ferry said of the tariffs. "If you grow the industries, in the long term, headcount will grow."

That's little comfort to the workers laid off from Great Lakes Works, who have found it harder to get new jobs amid the pandemic, Kemper said. The twin cities of Ecorse and River Rouge - which depended heavily on tax revenue from the plant - are also hurting, the cities' mayors said. Ecorse used to collect up to $6 million in property taxes from the mill - or half its revenue, said Mayor Lamar Indwell, a Democrat.

Many Democrats have supported steel tariffs. The Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment on its steel trade policy. In a statement to USW in May, Biden said steel tariffs would remain until a global solution to limit excess production - largely in China - can be negotiated.

USW also supports tariffs but says the Trump administration undermined the policy by granting requests from steel-using U.S. manufacturers to exempt their imports - eliminating the advantage for domestic steel.

TARIFF HITS MICHIGAN AUTO FIRMS

The tariffs had a profound impact on steel consumers, industry experts say. All three Detroit automakers - General Motors ( GM ) 

Loading...

, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV ( FCAU ) 

Loading...

- have closed a plant in Michigan since January 2018, according to Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor and economics at the Center for Automotive Research. Both General Motors ( GM ) 

Loading...

and Ford reported $1 billion each in increased steel cost in 2018.

GM declined to comment on the tariffs' impact. A Ford spokeswoman said the automaker faced higher raw material costs in 2018 because it buys 95% of its steel from domestic suppliers. While raw steel prices have since come down, Ford's manufacturing costs are still elevated because of U.S. tariffs on Chinese-made auto parts, she said. Retaliatory tariffs from China have also cut Ford's vehicle exports to that country.

Companies further down the auto supply chain have also felt the impact of Trump's trade policy.

Jeff Aznavorian, head of Michigan-based Clips & Clamps Industries, buys steel from U.S. mills to make metal and tool parts for Japanese and Detroit-based automakers. He said his company has lost contracts worth up to $3.6 million in the past two years. Competitors making parts in Canada and Mexico now have an advantage, he said, because steel costs have been lower in those countries.

Aznavorian said he may move some of his business overseas.

"I need to be in a place where I can buy raw material at a competitive price," he said.

(Reporting by Rajesh Kumar Singh; additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; editing by Caroline Stauffer and Brian Thevenot)

(c) Reuters 2020. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

Many Democrats have supported steel tariffs. The Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment on its steel trade policy. In a statement to USW in May, Biden said steel tariffs would remain until a global solution to limit excess production - largely in China - can be negotiated.

So we're likely to get more of the same no matter which half of the Duopoly wins? Shocking news.

22 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

USW also supports tariffs but says the Trump administration undermined the policy by granting requests from steel-using U.S. manufacturers to exempt their imports - eliminating the advantage for domestic steel.

Oh no. So it turns out that the tariffs just create an opportunity for crony capitalism. I can't take another shock!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2020 at 8:27 AM, Quotidian Tom said:
On 8/21/2020 at 11:10 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Hey Tom quick question: Who are Reason's founders supporting for the 2020 vote?

Lanny Friedlander died in 2011. Tibor Machan died in 2016. Not sure about Manny Klausner. As for Robert Poole, this piece suggests he supports looking outside the Duopoly.

Quick question: why do you ask?

Although answers from dead people are as unlikely to be forthcoming as an answer from CLEAN to that question, there is this to consider:

Quote

As we do every four years, we will ask Reason staffers to share who they're voting for in the presidential contest and post the results online in October. We do this because we think it's important for people who subscribe to our magazine and read our website and watch our videos and listen to our podcasts to know where our writers and editors and producers are coming from. More publications should consider this form of disclosure, especially those who claim to primarily be purveyors of fact and not opinion or analysis.

I agree that this kind of disclosure would be illuminating if other publications were to do it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Money for Farmers
 

Quote

 

...

In 2018, I predicted (as did many others) that Trump's international trade tariffs would spur retaliatory tariffs and harm U.S. farmers and consumers in the process. They did just that.

But because Trump's tariffs hurt U.S. farmers, and because he wants them to vote for him again, he's sending them cash. That cash even has a name. Last year, one farmer NPR food-policy writer Dan Charles spoke with says he and his fellow farmers have taken to referring to the tariff-induced subsidies as "Trump money."

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture simply sent [the farmer] a check to compensate him for the low prices resulting from the trade war," Charles explains.

Most of Trump's subsidies have gone to large producers.

...

All of these payments are wrongheaded and unnecessary—whether to big or small producers—as I detail in my book, Biting the Hands that Feed Us.

In a Chicago Tribune op-ed this week, Wisconsin farmer and advocate Danielle Endvick explains that while the record farm subsidies are "deeply appreciated," taking buckets of "Trump money"—she notes federal farm payments have "nearly tripled since 2017″— "feels just a little bit dirty" during the election season.

She's right. Everything feels dirty during the election season. But Trump's taxpayer handouts to farmers just feels a little bit dirtier.

 

I'm as sorry as usual for posting more Koch-$pon$ored Trump cheerleading.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2020 at 4:56 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

I guessed wrong about Robert Poole. He's voting for Trump.

None of the other couple dozen on the Reason staff plan to join him.

it's casting notes from a dystopian screenplay 

I like this one, in which a senior staffer claims that the constitution governing the country in which he lives is illegitimate.  Odd choice to live here.

JOHN OSTERHOUDT
Producer

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Political representation is illegitimate in theory and a sham in practice. I don't plan to vote for anyone.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? In 2016, I took the time to research every candidate for every position on the ballot. What a waste of time that was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I like this one, in which a senior staffer claims that the constitution governing the country in which he lives is illegitimate.  Odd choice to live here.

The really odd choice would be if he actually pays taxes. That's supporting the "sham" far more than voting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WSJ normally is pretty good but a big glaring China mistake. 

- Getting China to liberalise was its accession to the WTO. Hasn't been anything come close towards encouraging world tariff and non tarriff barrier lowering. 

- Countries respected the US's push back against China, particularly IP,  but it doesn’t include abandoning the WTO.

The writer says; "Mr. Trump’s actions may make U.S. allies MORE, not less, willing to work with it on China." In fact the opposite is occuring. Trump's trade wars with allies have made them LESS likely to want to work with the U.S., in general and with respect to China. 

The WTO Couldn’t Change China, so Robert Lighthizer Found Another Way

"Trump’s top trade official, long a critic of the WTO and China, has been busy implementing the approach."

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

The writer says; "Mr. Trump’s actions may make U.S. allies MORE, not less, willing to work with it on China." In fact the opposite is occuring. Trump's trade wars with allies have made them LESS likely to want to work with the U.S., in general and with respect to China. 

It’s the usual Trump conflation. China’s actions make others more willing to deal with the US, the Trump admin puts the allies off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Who really believes tariffs are good business?

Josh Hawley
 

Quote

 

The latest legislative proposal being pushed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) aims for what might be thought of as the Triple Crown of contemporary conservatism. It misunderstands economics and the benefits of global trade, promises to hurt people who have done nothing wrong, and wraps itself in a feigned sense of toughness while actually doing more to help China than America.

Hawley's bill, introduced on December 8, would temporarily shutter the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, a 1974 law that grants special import status to goods received from certain developing nations. The GSP program is a unilateral trade policy—that is, America reduces its tariffs to allow more imports from nations that qualify for GSP status even if those countries don't do the same in return—that recognizes the fundamental benefits of free trade. American businesses and consumers can buy duty-free imports, while businesses in those GSP nations gain access to the world's largest economy, which helps them grow.

...

Perhaps in the hopes that other conservatives will ignore the actual reality of what he's proposing, Hawley staff have been wrongly presenting the GSP proposal as an attack on China. Facing criticism on Twitter, Kyle Plotkin, Hawley's chief of staff, defended the proposal by invoking the threat of American jobs being offshored to China.

Except, well, China isn't part of the GSP program at all. Ironically, terminating the GSP program would probably boost China by effectively raising American tariffs on imports from countries that compete with China. A 2019 survey of American importers found that if GSP was terminated, one-third of them would source more goods from China.

...

It is remarkable that Hawley has managed to pack so much of the ethos of Trump-era economic nationalism into a three-page bill, but that's what makes him a rising star.

Bryan Riley, director of the free trade initiative at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a free market think tank, describes Hawley's proposal as a "pro-communist China bill to encourage production in China instead of in developing countries" that are currently eligible for GSP.

"If you want to get tough on China," says Riley, "it would seem to make sense to reduce barriers to imports from other countries."

But it wouldn't be economic nationalism if it made sense.

 

(with apologies for the Koch-$ponsored Trump cheerleading, as always.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/17/2020 at 6:44 AM, Polytelum Tom said:

Who really believes tariffs are good business? 

Josh Hawley

Until we're talking about a Missouri business, that is...
 

Quote

 

When a Missouri-based power tool manufacturer was facing the prospect of higher costs due to new tariffs on imported saw blades, it turned to friends in high places for help—including Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.).

Hawley has been an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump's destructive trade policies. In fact, he's suggested that the president should have done more to dismantle the system of global trade. But Hawley was one of four members of Missouri's congressional delegation to sign onto a letter sent in September 2019 asking the U.S. trade representative to grant a special exemption for SM Products, which is based in Kansas City.

"It would not be beneficial to impair a small American company that does not have the financial resources or alternative supply chain options," the lawmakers wrote in the letter, which was obtained and published this week by the Wall Street Journal. Because SM Products had contracts locked-in months in advance, it had no choice but to eat the cost of the tariffs, they wrote, warning that "this cost will likely prevent SM Products from reaching profitability, thereby jeopardizing its future viability."

In short: China wasn't paying for the tariffs.

The tariff costs facing SM Products were also hitting many other American manufacturers since much of American manufacturing is dependent on the ability to import low-cost inputs from China and elsewhere. But while some companies were able to find members of Congress willing to lobby on their behalf before the unelected board of trade officials who get to decide which tariff exemptions to grant and which requests to ignore, most other American businesses were less fortunate.

As I reported in May 2018 when the Trump administration was first considering imposing tariffs on thousands of Chinese-made products, the U.S. International Trade Commission hearing was a five-day parade of business owners literally begging the federal government not to do it. One after another, for five minutes at a time, hundreds of business owners told the commission much the same thing that Hawley and his colleagues wrote in that letter: Tariffs would hurt their profitability. Contracts were already locked in and couldn't be altered at the drop of a hat. Alternative supply chains would take time and money to develop.

Once the tariffs were in place, the Trump administration set up a murky, confusing process for companies to request exemptions. It was, and is, a system that almost seems designed to be exploited by politically connected firms and individuals. Indeed, right from the start of the Trump trade wars, some major American steel manufacturers appeared to be exercising undue influence over the exemption process. Members of Congress have warned that the process lacks "basic due process and procedural fairness" and that it could be "abused for anticompetitive purposes." After two years, the government's own data suggest that's exactly what has happened.

...

 

The government did successfully drain the Everglades, which turned out to be a bad idea. Other than that, the swamp draining looks a lot more like swamp filling.

(with apologies for the Koch-$ponsored Trump cheerleading, as always.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Retrospective on all the Winning
 

Quote

 

...

Instead of listening to the businesses that would be on the front lines of the trade war, Trump appointed Peter Navarro, a failed progressive politician from California with no business experience, to oversee his trade policies. Navarro supplied plenty of anti-China bluster in TV appearances that surely satisfied the cable news–addicted president, but he provided little serious economic insight to an administration desperately in need of some.

...

In 2017, the last year before the trade war began, China imported more than $19 billion in American farm goods, which fell to $9 billion in 2018 and rebounded weakly to $13 billion in 2019. Exports to other countries have been unable to make up the difference, leaving American farmers in the lurch.

The Trump administration responded by spending more than $28 billion in new farm subsidies to mitigate the totally predictable mess it made. By the end of 2020, federal payments accounted for one-third of all American farm income—as Trump's trade war bailout was piled atop existing subsidies. Rolling back those payments will be politically difficult for future administrations, so they might be here to stay.

...

From the start, Trump and his top trade advisers have used a single statistic as their guiding star for the trade war: America's trade deficit. Like with tariffs, Trump seems to misunderstand the basic economics that drive trade surpluses and deficits—the difference between the value of goods imported from and exported to the rest of the world.

But if the trade deficit is how the president wants to be judged, so be it. America's trade deficit was $49 billion in March 2018, the month Trump announced his trade war.

In November 2020, the most recent month for which full data is available, the trade deficit was $68 billion—just slightly down from a 14-year record high set in August of last year.

By Trump's chosen metric, his trade policies have failed.

...

 

(with apologies for the Koch-$ponsored HWSNBN cheerleading, as always.)

Hmm... doesn't have quite the same ring to it and also suggests a certain affinity for fourth mode travel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes, just sometimes,  throwing your weight around and picking on the little fellah doesn't quite work out the way you hoped. What brings a wry smile is Jingping trying to emulate his fuckwit nemesis in using trade muscle...aint working out so well.

 

Column: China fails to learn from Trump backfire in trade war, is losing against Australia

LAUNCESTON, Australia (Reuters) - China is paying a heavy toll for its efforts to punish Australia by banning or restricting certain commodity imports, while conversely Australia seems to have avoided any serious financial ramifications so far. It is perhaps surprising that the authorities in Beijing, having witnessed how the trade war launched by former U.S. President Donald Trump backfired on his own country, would be keen to try the same thing on Australia.

Trump tweeted in March 2018, as his administration was ramping up its tariffs against Chinese goods that “trade wars are good, and easy to win”.

It turns out that he was somewhat right, but only in the reverse of what he expected, insofar as the country that launches the trade war tends to be the loser, and the country that is the intended target seems to prosper. Coal is the highest-profile Chinese target in the Australia row. Beijing effectively all but banned imports from Australia as part of its efforts to pressure Canberra on several issues, ranging from Australia’s call for an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic to the decision to block Huawei from Australia’s 5G network rollout.

China’s imports of Australian coal have collapsed, with Refinitiv vessel-tracking and port data showing just 687,000 tonnes were discharged in December, down from the 2020 peak of 9.46 million tonnes in June.

But the data also show that Australia’s overall exports haven’t really suffered, with December shipments of 33.82 million tonnes being the best month in 2020. While the cold snap across north Asia boosted demand from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, it also appears Australia has managed to ship more coal to other regional consumers, such as India, Vietnam and Thailand.

Coal is more than just a volume story, with prices moving in favour of Australia and against China.

Australia’s coal exports were worth A$3.7 billion ($2.87 billion) in December, the most since May last year, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The benchmark Australian thermal coal price, the Newcastle Weekly Index, as assessed by commodity price reporting agency Argus, ended at $87.52 a tonne on Jan. 22. That was up 89% from its 2020 low of $46.37, reached in September, at a time when market concern over the impact of China’s effective ban on imports was highest.

The rise in seaborne coal prices has made it more expensive for China to buy imported coal. In turn, that has allowed domestic prices to remain elevated as they aren’t facing competition from overseas producers.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And to rub salt into the wound....

IRON ORE, COPPER

It’s not just coal where Australia seems to be more than holding its own in the trade dispute: exports of cereals rose to A$1.19 billion in December, the highest on record and almost three times the value of shipments in November. China imposed an 80.5% tariff on imports of Australian barley in May last, collapsing the trade between the two nations. But while Australian barley farmers were initially hit hard, they have successfully managed to switch to alternative markets or plant other crops.

China also has an unofficial ban on imports of copper ores and concentrates from Australia, which had been its fifth biggest supplier.

However, a global shortage of mined copper ores means China is being forced to pay more for supplies. At the same time its smelters are having to pay less for treatment and refining charges, as they struggle to source material. Again, what has happened is that China has cut itself off from a source of supply at a time of global shortage. It has imposed costs on itself and no penalty on Australian copper miners, who can sell easily to other buyers.

China hasn’t mandated any restrictions on the most important commodity it buys from Australia, namely iron ore. But it is having to pay handsomely for buying the steel-making ingredient given supply issues in Brazil, the second-largest exporter behind Australia.

Australia’s exports of metal ores, which include iron ore and copper, rose to a record A$15.2 billion in December, up 22.6% on November, according to official statistics.Overall, Australia’s exports to China were A$13.34 billion in December, the highest since June, reflecting strong demand for iron ore, liquefied natural gas and some agricultural commodities.

Since China started its trade actions against Australia, the numbers seem to be tilting heavily in favour of Canberra.

This supports the lesson from the U.S.-China trade dispute: if you still need the products you are targeting for tariffs or import bans, it will cost more to source them from other suppliers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

This supports the lesson from the U.S.-China trade dispute: if you still need the products you are targeting for tariffs or import bans, it will cost more to source them from other suppliers.

Yeah - I said that months ago. China can do some damage to Australia's economy but that's just pissing us off and it's not going to change things.

Unlike our supposed friends in NZ who, having sold out to China, want us to do the same.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a lot of work to put together a mutually beneficial trade multi-national org excluding China, but it would be worth it.

I don't think many of the potential partners would want the USA to lead it, though. Not until after a few more election cycles of good behavior

- DSK

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

It would be a lot of work to put together a mutually beneficial trade multi-national org excluding China, but it would be worth it.

I don't think many of the potential partners would want the USA to lead it, though. Not until after a few more election cycles of good behavior

- DSK

Xi is already complaining about how doing something like that would be a hostile act. Kind of funny really. Trade wars are fine and dandy when you're doing it but not so great when others start boycotting Chinese exports.

WRT the USA leading anything like this, first you'd have to get over trying to use it as leverage to favour US companies and fuck over everyone else involved as you did in the TPP. I really can't see that happening so, no.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
19 hours ago, jzk said:

When do we get to removing the tariffs?

Why do we have a tariff on sugar?

When there's a consensus that taxes impede prosperity and don't cause it. In other words, not soon.

We have a tariff on sugar to protect struggling family farmers, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The unsurprising answer to the topic question: Biden and Trump do.

Instead of Lifting Trump's Tariffs, Biden Is Imposing More of Them
 

Quote

 

President Joe Biden's first major trade policy move will be disappointing for anyone who hoped his inauguration would put an end to the presidential practice of unilaterally imposing expensive, unnecessary tariffs for vacuous national security reasons.

Biden's decision last week to reimpose 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) contains all the major hallmarks of former President Donald Trump's misguided trade policies. Biden even sounded downright Trumpian as he announced the renewed tariffs—which Trump had lifted during his final days in office. "The available evidence indicates that imports from the UAE may still displace domestic production, and thereby threaten to impair our national security," says Biden's executive order announcing the policy.

The idea that aluminum imports are a threat to national security was a bunch of nonsense when Trump did it, and it's still bunk when Biden says it. ...

 

 

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

When there's a consensus that taxes impede prosperity and don't cause it. In other words, not soon.

We have a tariff on sugar to protect struggling family farmers, of course.

Those struggling family corn farmers.  Gotta help them any way we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trade War Drove American Automaking Jobs to China as Tariffs Stalled U.S. Exports
 

Quote

 

Former President Donald Trump's trade war sank American manufacturing exports and inadvertently helped shift automaking jobs to China as carmakers, including BMW and Tesla, responded to new uncertainty in global supply chains by moving more manufacturing across the Pacific.

...

Chad Bown, a senior fellow at PIIE and the report's author, notes that China had become the second-largest export market for American-made cars by 2017, the last full year before Trump's trade war began. After a series of tit-for-tat tariff increases between the U.S. and China, however, American automotive exports to China fell by more than one-third. Higher tariffs on imported car parts from China raised costs for automakers in America, while China's retaliatory tariffs on American-made cars hiked prices and reduced demand in China.

...

Even though China pledged to increase its purchases of American-made vehicles and car parts as part of the agreement, exports are still lagging well behind their pre-trade war totals, according to the PIIE report.

"The U.S. auto sector provides an excellent illustration of how even temporary trade war tariffs can inflict long-term damage," Bown concludes.

It's also a good microcosm for understanding why Trump's trade war didn't achieve its stated goal of reducing America's trade deficit with China, and why the Biden administration would be wise to abolish those tariffs as soon as possible.

Trump believed that hiking tariffs would reduce America's imports from China, allowing the gap between the value of those imports and the value of America's exports to fall. What he failed to grasp, however, is that many of those imports—especially when it comes to manufactured goods—are materials necessary for making the items that American companies end up exporting back to China: like cars.

...

 

(offered with apologies for the Koch-$ponsored Trump cheerleading, as always.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/10/2021 at 6:46 AM, Pedagogical Tom said:

The unsurprising answer to the topic question: Biden and Trump do.

In other unsurprising news, another answer is Biden's pick for US Trade Representative, Katherine Tai.

Quote

Trump's trade policies caused "a lot of disruption and consternation," Tai said at one point during Thursday's hearing. "I want to accomplish similar goals in a more effective process."

Great. What you want most in a foot shooting contest is better aim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/22/2020 at 8:27 AM, Shambolic Tom said:
On 8/21/2020 at 11:10 AM, MR.CLEAN said:

Hey Tom quick question: Who are Reason's founders supporting for the 2020 vote?

Lanny Friedlander died in 2011. Tibor Machan died in 2016. Not sure about Manny Klausner. As for Robert Poole, this piece suggests he supports looking outside the Duopoly.

Quick question: why do you ask?

Lanny Friedlander: The Eccentric Genius Who Created Reason Magazine

Maybe that can shed some more light on your quick question, Clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who really believes tariffs are good business?

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Senator Bob Casey
 

Quote

 

The Trump administration was able to reshape America's trade policy in large part because it simply decided to ignore anything that punctured its manufactured reality about how tariffs work.

Economic data show that American businesses and consumers—not China—are overwhelmingly paying the cost of the tariffs? Send Peter Navarro out to do some television hits where he baselessly claims otherwise.

Thousands of American companies are lining up at hearings to explain why the tariffs would hurt their bottom line? Give Wilbur Ross a can of tomato soup and let him explain that those added costs are actually no big deal.

Farmers are getting gutted by the trade war? Send them fat checks, deny that your policies were to blame, and inadvertently create a new, expensive aid program that will be politically difficult to unwind.

Those clowns are no longer running the show, but the Biden administration seems determined to keep the circus going a while longer. Take, for example, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo doing her best Navarro impression during an interview earlier this month with MSNBC. Asked about whether the Biden administration would roll back the Trump tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods from China, Raimondo argued that "the data shows that those tariffs have been effective."

Have they? Raimondo was careful to avoid saying exactly what the tariffs have been "effective" at accomplishing, but the actual data would suggest the answer is not much—except, of course, raising prices for American businesses and consumers.

...

Perhaps the best illustration of how Democrats are seeking to entrench Trump's tariffs as mainstream U.S. trade policy is a proposal drafted by U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D–Pa.), a longtime family friend and close ally of Biden's.

During a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, Casey said he hopes to create a new grant program to steer tariff revenue to communities where manufacturing jobs are disappearing. His proposal, Casey explained, "would direct the revenue derived from anti-dumping and countervailing duties back to communities impacted by trade."

In other words, use the tariff revenue to offset the cost of the tariffs. It's basically the Trump administration's farmer bailout all over again, except with a different set of beneficiaries.

...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Africa Tries Free Trade
 

Quote

 

Economic nationalism has plagued Africa since decolonization. In 2021, that is set to change.

On January 1, the long-awaited African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) came into effect. Aside from the economic benefits that the arrangement will bring to the continent, Africa's newfound support for free trade and liberalization marks a clear rejection of the socialist ideology that has tormented African politics for decades.

As it stands, 36 of the 55 African Union (A.U.) nations, including the regional economic powerhouses of Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt (which together make up a third of the continent's economy), have ratified the free trade area. Another 18 nations have indicated their support by signing the trade agreement and are expected to become full members soon. So strong is the appetite for free trade in Africa that Eritrea—often dubbed "Africa's Hermit Kingdom"—is the only nation on the continent that remains reluctant to support the agreement.

Eritrea may eventually reconsider. Within 5–10 years, the AfCFTA will ensure that 90 percent of tariffs on goods traded between member states will be abolished. Within 13 years, 97 percent of all tariffs will be removed. By 2035, the World Bank has predicted, this enormous liberalization effort will boost Africa's gross domestic product by $450 billion, increase wages for both skilled and unskilled workers by 10 percent, and lift more than 30 million people out of extreme poverty...

 

That's good news for the whole continent and will drag Eritrea upward whether they like it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

More Than 300 Manufacturers Just Asked Biden To Repeal Trump's Steel Tariffs as Prices Skyrocket
 

Quote

 

...On Thursday, more than 300 manufacturing businesses sent a letter to the White House urging Biden to repeal Trump's tariffs, which the signatories say have contributed to supply shortages, long lead times, and artificially high prices for key inputs made of steel and aluminum.

...

The Biden administration has waffled between defending Trump's tariffs as "effective"—which they are clearly not—and promising to be more discerning about how it uses (or abuses) the executive trade powers Trump stretched to new limits.

Neither approach offers much relief for American manufacturers that have been caught in the middle of misguided federal trade policies for over three years. Biden should set aside politics for a moment and listen to what they have to say.

 

Looks like the question of whether tariffs are good business is one on which we've achieved blessed bipartisan unity. Sigh.

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

More Than 300 Manufacturers Just Asked Biden To Repeal Trump's Steel Tariffs as Prices Skyrocket
 

Looks like the question of whether tariffs are good business is one on which we've achieved blessed bipartisan unity. Sigh.

Steel prices are skyrocketing because those same manufacturers cut orders, causing the mills to cut back. It'll take 6 months to ramp back up.  Hard to feel sorry for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/10/2021 at 10:59 AM, Raz'r said:

Steel prices are skyrocketing because those same manufacturers cut orders, causing the mills to cut back. It'll take 6 months to ramp back up.  Hard to feel sorry for them.

Our foot-shooting contest doesn't just affect businesses. Consumers are the taxpayers here and some of us are tired of all the winning. You don't have to feel sorry for a particular small group of businesses to realize that the answer to the thread topic question is: idiots.

China Is Paying Less Than 8 Percent of Tariff Costs. Americans Are Paying the Rest.

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

Our foot-shooting contest doesn't just affect businesses. Consumers are the taxpayers here and some of us are tired of all the winning. You don't have to feel sorry for a particular small group of businesses to realize that the answer to the thread topic question is: idiots.

China Is Paying Less Than 8 Percent of Tariff Costs. Americans Are Paying the Rest.

I'm surprised they are paying that much

The greater majority of the time, this kind of added cost is passed on to the consumer... often, it's padded so the seller pockets more. Depends on the price elasticity.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP, the Founders thought Tariffs were the way to go. One would think someone who was so enamored with how the founders felt about gunz, would respect their views on tariffs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/25/2021 at 12:29 PM, Raz'r said:

To the OP, the Founders thought Tariffs were the way to go. One would think someone who was so enamored with how the founders felt about gunz, would respect their views on tariffs.

Partybot thinking. Just because you're here supporting Trump on tariffs, does that mean you support him on every issue? Besides, if they really thought tariffs were always wonderful, they'd have favored allowing states to impose them on each other. But they didn't.

But that's not why I'm here.

Lumber Is Cra