Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Poverty hasn't change from the obama administration to his. And unemployment has already been decreasing since Obama's last couple years. This trade war will send it back upwards if anything and undo the effects of the tax bill. Oh and premiums haven't ended on healthcare not to mention his plans would leave millions more without coverage.
The tariffs will bring back jobs to impoverished communities which will lower poverty, increase consumption, which then increases tax revenue, which will then be used to improve infrastructure, which will then lower accidents and sicknesses (faulty pipelines, road accidents, etc.) which should then lower the healthcare costs on those who need them.
The tariffs will bring back jobs to impoverished communities which will lower poverty, increase consumption, which then increases tax revenue, which will then be used to improve infrastructure, which will then lower accidents and sicknesses (faulty pipelines, road accidents, etc.) which should then lower the healthcare costs on those who need them.
Mark my word.
You realize that while only tens thousands of people work in the steel industry, MILLIONS work in industries that USE or consume steel in some shape or form. In trying to help a very small section of the economy, you're harming a large part of the economy by increasing steel prices. It makes no sense to anyone with a brain.
Lets not forget that we actually have a trade SURPLUS with Canada, our largest source of foriegn steel. If Canada retaliates, we have MORE to loose than they do.
The tariffs will bring back jobs to impoverished communities which will lower poverty, increase consumption, which then increases tax revenue, which will then be used to improve infrastructure, which will then lower accidents and sicknesses (faulty pipelines, road accidents, etc.) which should then lower the healthcare costs on those who need them.
Mark my word.
Your words are marked.........! None of them have any provenance in fact, either through historical proof or practical logic. That "marked" enough for you?
Sorry that can't remember the author or title. A few years ago I came across a book in the public library which described a theoretical exercise-the collapse of the global trade regime. I recall a few points:
1. For governments, at a certain point it will sink in that the trade order is collapsing.
2. Governments will choose to dump WTO rules-they will do whatever is required for national survival.
3. Governments will scramble to make bilateral deals with countries that possess crucial resources.
#3 will somewhat resemble the UK after the Brexit vote-a scramble for trade deals-but with multiple desperate countries scrambling.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 03-16-2018 at 05:27 PM..
The tariffs will bring back jobs to impoverished communities which will lower poverty, increase consumption, which then increases tax revenue, which will then be used to improve infrastructure, which will then lower accidents and sicknesses (faulty pipelines, road accidents, etc.) which should then lower the healthcare costs on those who need them.
Mark my word.
Sounds like blind hero and indoctrination worship instead of something said out of facts and logic.
Here's a tip, if the people who work and run the companies that use steel and aluminum in their products say that the tariffs are a bad idea, then they are probably a bad idea.
Came across an online article that describes Trump's attitudes towards trade-"Opinion: Trump's trade policy is more predictable and less isolationist than critics think" by Peter K. Wu. To summarize:
1. Trump prefers bilateral deals to multi-lateral deals.
2. Trump isn't interested in regional trade blocs. He is opportunistic in terms of trade partners.
3. Trump is inclined towards hard bargaining, and ultimatums. Expect saber rattling.
The reason being that Bush was smart enough to recognise the damage retaliatory tariffs would cause, as the EU was going to hit states important to Bus with a large tax on oranges. The Orange Tax being very much targeted at the swing state of Florida, whilst Sugar was also seen as a good target in relation to Florida.
The same thing has happened again, with Trump backing down after the EU announced it would meely put large tariffs on selected American goods, namely agricultural produce such as Orange Juice, Peanuts, Bourbon Whiskey all from the South, as well as Cranberries and iconic brands such as Jack Daniels, Levi Jeans and Harley Davidson.
China will most likely hit back with a tarrifs on goods such as soybeans, a major US Crop of which over a third is exported to China, Cotton which will again hit the red states in the South and Cars, China being a major and increasing automobile market.
US reatailers don't want a trade war as it will lead to US goods such as steel products, clothing (cotton) and numerous other goods becoming more expensive, however the real casaulty will be the US Consumer and certain sectors of the US economy.
Quote:
On November 11, 2003, the WTO came out against the steel tariffs, saying that they had not been imposed during a period of import surge—steel imports had actually dropped a bit during 2001 and 2002—and that the tariffs therefore were a violation of America's WTO tariff-rate commitments.
The ruling authorized more than $2 billion in sanctions, the largest penalty ever imposed by the WTO against a member state, if the United States did not quickly remove the tariffs.After receiving the verdict, Bush declared that he would preserve the tariffs.
In retaliation, the European Union threatened to counter with tariffs of its own on products ranging from Florida oranges to cars produced in Michigan, with each tariff calculated to likewise hurt the President in a key marginal state. The United States backed down and withdrew the tariffs on December 4. 2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia
Quote:
The Bush administration withdrew the tariffs in December 2003, about 21 months after they were imposed, but not without a cost.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition found that 200,000 workers in U.S. manufacturing lost their jobs as a result of the tariffs. For comparison, the entire U.S. steel industry employed 197,000 at the time.
I can't think of any historical examples of someone "winning" a trade war. I'm also not sure what sort of criteria you'd use to determine that.
Now some allies are temporarily 'exempt' from the tariffs. We don't know for how long but for now anyway - Papi Trump is dangling carrots. First comes the stick than the carrots - with this Papi, who knows what is next
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of them have any provenance in fact, either through historical proof or practical logic. That "marked" enough for you?
