Trump's steel tariff


#101

“we require no access to Markets abroad to prosper and they know it.”

(Post flagged and edited by RWNJ)

We export 1.4 TRILLION a year.


#102

Coming from a Bernie supporter I take that as a great compliment!

I start worrying when Liberals agree with something I say, when they mock me I know I am on solid ground :wink:


#103

And it doesn’t work. Subsidies end up replacing innovative impulses in your markets, resulting in your nation being left behind by nations who don’t.

Japan has been subsidizing its domestic industries for decades, same to the French. And yet, they’re falling behind the rest of the world. Alltel, France’s main telecommunications company, can’t even make a phone abroad markets will buy.

That’s no coincidence. Subsidize, you in-build weakness.

All China is doing by subsidizing its industries, is creating what will become noncompetitive dinosaurs, and the leadership will be too entrenched into those industries to stop.

Labor costs in China have already exceeded parts of Europe.

China will get pushed aside by the African Lions or other developing nations in Southeast Asia, the same way China pushed aside Italy doing the same thing; trying to be the low-cost option.


#104

Between your pevious comments about Home Depot and now comparing Japan to a Communist nation that controls all the means of production you really should avoid discussing economics.


#105

Which you were wrong about. They don’t maintain prices in real time, and they themselves state that they get their supply domestically.

Not to mention the numerous sources pointing to lumber prices rising.

Not to mention Canada not backing down.

Not to mention China not changing its policy.

You were wrong on all of these counts RET. Let the record stand.

Do you know what Abenomics is? Do you know what Japan has been doing these past 30 years, and why it is their economy has seen virtually no growth, despite a workforce that (in hours per week) works well above the average for industrialized nations?

Do you know why the Japanese yen is worth less than the Mexican peso? Do you know why their unemployment rate “appears” lower?

Because I do RET.

You want to challenge me in my domain? Go right ahead.

You don’t pay attention to these things RET, I do.


#106

And getting their supply domestically changes exactly what regarding this debate?

Oh that’s right, it proves you wrong; big shock.

By the way, ready to put your money where your mouth is on this tariff? I would think your confidence in the Obama trade policy would inspire great confidence in your chances to win that bet.


#107

LOL, right, you use them as evidence of tariffs not affecting the prices on lumber, tariffs on foreign goods,
yet their supply chain turning out to be domestic changes nothing here?

Only in your little world RET. The world where you can’t admit you spoke out of turn, and made a ridiculous claim you can’t substantiate.

I’ve admitted to you when I’ve been wrong, that you can’t do the same speaks ill of your temperament.

Lumber prices rose, that’s a fact. Anyone can look it up, and see it for themselves.

BS; I never placed “confidence” in Obama anything.

Starting an argument by making **** up? Doesn’t bear well for how useful talking to you is going to be.

Show me what you know about Japan, show me why exactly my comparison to France doesn’t hold, or better yet, how subsidizing doesn’t contribute to their stagnation, or I’ll take it you’re wasting my time.


#108

I think that’s something those morons actually believed.

Excellent names.

I have. Unfortunately, everything tariff-related is buried under steel and aluminum atm. But they are about protection not raising tax revenue. Revenue is not the primary objcective of these taxes. I don’t believe he’s uttered those words at all. All Trump talks about its “protecting,” and we really don’t need protecting.

More foolishness on their part. They have to shift resources. Trading partners can only produce so much. That’s why trade is a thing in the first place. Meanwhile, we begin producing what we need or find another source.

I fail to see how especially as their own policies wreck their economy and make them less competitive.

Because we’ve shifted production to other areas. Indeed. And then if the subsidizing nation reinstates subsidies, they fail to win their new target. They lose over and over again. The only reason to worry is for strategic national security purposes. That’s not a current threat to our industries.

And this? Our own regulations strangle our flexibility? Shocking. Because government regulators and red tape are so thick, you favor limits on my right to trade with foreigners. I don’t get it.

I live in small town America. It looks fine. Prices are fine. In areas where there isn’t a corporate chain, prices are bad. In areas with a corporate chain, prices look just fine to me. Some of the local stores do it too! But the bigger corporate stores are generally cheaper. I’m curious, do you also support using regulation to prohibit corporate chains from using loss leaders?

Why are politicians involved in trade agreements in the first place? Do you really think politicians should negotiate on your behalf?

Except for the folks who rely on the targeted imports. But forget them.

We all need to trade with each other to prosper. That’s central to the idea of trade and free trade. That’s central to capitalism. Foolish behavior will create foolish results that put people out of jobs, increase prices on consumers and create poverty all because central economic planners think they know what the best trades are for you and me.


#109

Agreed. Was a time I used to argue about this with liberal Democrats and socialists. Unfortunately or fortunately, because Team Trump is fer it, they’ve turned against it.


#110

This is what he said, explaining that it is cause Japan to be left behind by nations that don’t subsidize their industry:
It doesn’t matter whether it is a “communist country that controls all the means of production.” What does matter is the partial control over the means of production that is currently under discussion.


#111

What also matters is that Japan is the most in-debt nation on the face of the planet; more than Greece.

Seems to me RET doesn’t know this; he’s probably still stuck viewing Japan as they were in the 1980s, not realizing that every has gone to crap since then.

Their savings rate is in the Toilet, they have a negative interest rate, and the current generation of Japanese work more hours than their fathers, for the same wage.

Japan has produced no major companies in the 21st century. All of their big players have been around for decades, and they regularly get subsidies from the Government to do anything of value.

Japan suffers from Cartelism. A few major companies who do everything, because they got the Government’s backing to do it. Which means the Government moves to protect those companies because they’ve invested so much in them.


#112

Honda, Toyota and Subaru began by providing inexpensive, but reliable, fuel-efficient cars, taking over much of our NEED for such cars in light of the OPEC price controls for oil. Those cars WERE subsidized as to price. When they’d established their niche in the U.S. (and elsewhere) the subsidization ended (slowly) and the prices of their cars started to rise. Today, a new Honda Accord is MORE costly than most comparable Ford or Chevy cars, but their REPUTATION for fuel efficiency and quality makes them sought-after by American consumers.


#113

Because Japan doesn’t deal with the same idiotic labor practices we do.

Japan invented just-in-time inventory, and the Kaizen assembly method, which meant they could turn out more cars, of higher quality, while storing less materials in their production process, which means less overhead costs per vehicle.

Even when American manufactures figured out what they were doing, they couldn’t adopt it straight off, because the Unions wouldn’t have it.

For a finalized good like a car, it can also benefit from vertical integration; you know that your suppliers are building the parts you need to assemble an engine, or a differential, because you all work for the same company, and are being coordinated to ensure everything goes together.

GM isn’t so fortunate; many of their suppliers are different companies who couldn’t give a rats *** if the parts fit your design the way the blueprints say they should or not. Thus, you need to spend more time & energy putting things together.


#114

Reflecting the president’s economic literacy and motivations, he said this on Twitter yesterday: “When you’re already $500 Billion DOWN, you can’t lose!”


#115

Trump seems to be having a lot more success on these fronts than his predecessors who were apparently more “economically literate”. Perhaps business experience is more useful than being well read?


#116

Success on what front related to this, exactly?

Canada didn’t back down, China clearly isn’t either, and torpedoing the TPP has lead to China stealing the field, unopposed, with One Belt One Road.

Japan has desperately tried to act as a stop-gap to counter this influence, but they have neither the manpower nor the capital to make their own plan a true alternative for all of the small nations China is cozying up to, and will in the end likely fold themselves into China’s plan.


#117

He does? How so?

I am not applauding the economic literacy of previous presidents. President Bush II also imposed a steel tariff btw.

Being a businessman is not the same thing as understanding economics. Businessmen respond to incentives and disincentives in markets. It doesn’t mean they understand economics or have good economic political values. Businessmen seek favors from governments because, well, it’s free money if they can get it. Businessmen seek government protection from competition because, well, it’s free profit if they can keep competitors out of the market.

Economically literate capitalists do not worry about trade deficits at all. Most of us don’t worry about most of our trade deficits. They’re a natural part of trade. They’re what makes trade possible. I doubt the president would complain about any trade deficit he carries with any of the suppliers he uses in his businesses, but make it international trade, and it’s a whole new ballgame for no good reason. Trade deficits are big and scary, meanwhile, he doesn’t give any more more rips about public spending deficits than his predecessors.


#118

I’m aware, because economics has never accounted for the difference between investment and consumption. Which is a mind boggling hole.
Country A spends 10 billion dollars to build ore smelting plants
Country B spends 10 billion dollars to build hundreds of thousands of statues of Ludwig Von Mises.

According to current economic theory, both will have the exact same impact on the economy.

And they can even defend it by pointing out that the statue builders and raw material suppliers will go out and by food, and purchase new cars and houses, just as the people constructing the smelting plant!

Well yes, they will. But once both are complete, one will raise the manufacturing capacity of the country, while the other will have chucks of granite lying around.


#119

Straw man much?


#120

It’s directly addressing your point. You’re saying trade deficits don’t matter.

I’m saying they do.

They’re becoming more productive from forced technology transfers, while we get a pile of cheap crap that ends up in a landfill in 2 years.