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.
IMO, unless an industry is vital to the national defense, the free market should rule and no industries should be protected by tariffs, because the jobs tariffs protect are being subsidized through higher costs to everyone else. The higher prices lessens demand which hurts the economy overall. A hundred years ago, you could make the claim that steel was vital to national defense. Given the decline of the American steel industry over the last few decades and no accompanying decline in strength of our Armed Forces, I’m not sure that that old saw still applies.
The average tariff between U.S is 2 percent. Half of the products have no tariff. No certain products can have real high tariffs or weirdly disproportionate tariffs. For instance, U.S has a 2.5 tariff on E.U. cars while E.U. has a 10% tariff on U.S. cars., However, U.S. has a whopping 25% tax on E.U. pickups and vans. U.S. has over a 100 tariff on tobacco and peanuts.
I keep hearing how the tariffs between U.S. and other countries is slanted against the U.S. but it really seems to depend on the product.
IMO, unless an industry is vital to the national defense, the free market should rule and no industries should be protected by tariffs, because the jobs tariffs protect are being subsidized through higher costs to everyone else. The higher prices lessens demand which hurts the economy overall. A hundred years ago, you could make the claim that steel was vital to national defense. Given the decline of the American steel industry over the last few decades and no accompanying decline in strength of our Armed Forces, I’m not sure that that old saw still applies.
Nice try.
You know full well that free trade destroys the white working class which supports the Republican party. Any concern you may have for lower prices or economic efficiency are just rhetoric in service of your political agenda.
Your lame and desultory defense of free trade regarding steel imports belies your true intentions. Of course if we import our steel from China and India they have us by the balls and we cannot wage industrial war against them. Nice that you have concern for "our Armed Forces" (including capital letters) though.
Internet keyboard warriors are more likely to oppose tariffs because they are probably digitally savvy professionals who benefit from global trade, either through working in the export sector or buying cheap goods, and having their jobs protected from competition because of education levels.
However the steel and aluminum tariffs are supported by the public by a ratio of 2-1.
Any budget (American elitist or not) depends on the balance between income and outflow. How can anyone not grasp that we have an integrated global economy where most benefit from global trade?
What kept *most* Americans economically afloat during the last couple of decades when housing and health costs soared? China and Walmart. The continuation of the American middle-class lifestyle was made possible by *that* pricing structure.
Did American corporations and capital-holders benefit. Yes? For that is capitalism and the system we embraced - and continue to embrace for better or worse - and sometimes, worse (at least compared to even those market economies that utilize planning that we Americans eschew).
Did some Americans "pay" for trade-benefits (not to mention the gains in national security) through loss of jobs in the industrial sectors? Absolutely, again.
Did this nation acknowledge or attempt to effectively mitigate those losses and, yes, sacrifice through any sort of effective intervention? Heck, no. Remember the outcry over extended unemployment compensation during the worst of the recession.
But taking away other American jobs simply will not bring back that employment or FIX this. For it is not the JUST the "probably digitally savvy professionals" who "work" in the export sector. Rather do you have any idea how many entrepreneurial start-ups depend on imports? Or how many American manufacturing companies stay in business only due to imported parts?
To turn this into an "elitism" argument defies reality. To make it purely political - how Trump used it on the campaign trail.
He HAD no effective intervention - and so now uses the power of the Executive Office (mind you, not that of our Congressional representatives) to deploy a crude weapon that could substantially undercut the US economy and impact many, many millions beyond those who lost manufacturing jobs.
So, sure let's share the pain. Let the middle-class on reduced budgets now feel it. Let pensioners have their pension funds thrown into turmoil.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
All of the jobs are not coming back, but we do need to maintain a steel and aluminum industry for national security reasons. Same with food, telecoms, etc. Right now these other countries have jacked up their tarriffs and their anti-competitive regulations and requirements in such a way that they are very competitive in our markets, but we cannot compete in theirs. Also, again, we MUST maintain a domestic steel and aluminum manufacturing industry, regardless of the cost.
As far as the threats to retaliate and the whining in your second paragraph about how terrible it is that we have "upset" our trading partners, this sounds a lot like the drivel that you were semi-defending about people not being legally allowed to speak if it "offended" someone.
What a crock. These countries' high tarriffs on our products, their full-on subsidization of many of their most "competitive" industries, and their imposition of rules and regulations that make their markets either extremely difficult or effectively impossible to penetrate has BEEN OFFENSIVE TO US. But again, that only is supposed to work one-way by the sort of logic that wants to use this kind of argument, doesn't it? And these country's conduct actually has been truly "Offensive" towards us in the literal meaning of the word. Meanwhile, you are actually suggesting that they might be "Upset" by what are actually our "Defensive" response to their "Offensive" actions against us.
It is time to lose the double standards, in our rhetoric, in our domestic politics, and in our international relations, including trade. The time is now. When we reach that threshold, that will be the time for everyone to settle in and not be "Upset" anymore. Until then, you and your buddies will just have to suck it up and deal with it. You all started this, so you have nobody to shift the blame to but yourselves.
There are going to be a lot more tariffs on US goods in a trade war and the jobs might not come back, however making steel more expoensive is going to hot lots of US Industries from construction to ship building to food and beveridge and beyond. Materials costing more money will leed to more job loses and increased inflation, and also effect US exports. The Chinese may hit back by imposing tariffs on US Soya market, which relies on China or it may stop buying US Airliners and buy Aurbus and numerous other countries and trading blocks may follow suit, so a US against the entire world trade war is not a good, and in the end will just hurt the US and indeed the world economy.
The truth is the US consumer needs China in order to keep the supply of cheao goods in it's shops, this may not but the case when automation takes ever more jobs but it is the cae at the moment. It costs much more to make the same cheap product in the US, however in terms of quality and luxury goods the US and Europe can compete as the cost margins for such goods are much better.
It also should be noted that China has been preparing itself for such a situation for years. It also should be noted that the EU and other countries that are traditional US allies are also going to look mto put tariffs on numerous American goods, so this is going to be potentially very bad for everyone including the US.
Btw the UK is one of the few countries the US often enjoys favourable trade with, and we want to encourage free trade post Brexit and not more tariffs.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-04-2018 at 12:09 PM..
The average tariff between U.S is 2 percent. Half of the products have no tariff. No certain products can have real high tariffs or weirdly disproportionate tariffs. For instance, U.S has a 2.5 tariff on E.U. cars while E.U. has a 10% tariff on U.S. cars., However, U.S. has a whopping 25% tax on E.U. pickups and vans. U.S. has over a 100 tariff on tobacco and peanuts.
I keep hearing how the tariffs between U.S. and other countries is slanted against the U.S. but it really seems to depend on the product.
Trump's proposed tariffs on aluminum could really hurt the auto industry. Maybe someone pointed that out to him? So what does he tweet next - well let's just put a tariff on imported autos.
This is like the child's game of hot potato - transfer the point of pain from one holder to the next until the potato falls to the ground.
Tariffs are NOT the tool to deal with global inequities that, no argument, exist - mainly because the current system benefitted US corporations and some sub-industries and US consumers and national interests. And led to a dominant US economy, that is now challenged by other economies built from the ruins of ww2 and failed Communism. That THEIR structures are not always in accord with US-style capitalism IS an issue. But ...
Traditionally trade decisions are made with input from those who have some clue of the complexity of current tariff structures (which have been largely reduced on a global basis, now even non-existent) with input from stakeholders.
True ... State and Defense and Treasury and, now, Homeland Security have had the loudest voices at the trade table with Labor not so much.
Nothing will look as good as our flawed system, until we realize that it is not as impervious as we thought.
The U.S has one of the highest per capita GDP in the world. Certainly at or near the top of western peers. If there is an issue with distribution of wealth, I think that is more of an internal issue with how that wealth is distributed. Other countries with lower GDP per capita like Canada and the UK, even with economies where globalization is prominent, manage income inequality much better. At the end of the day, I don't think these tariffs will address income redistribution in the U.S and ultimately, may make the middle class and those struggling to get there even poorer because even modest increases in prices impact their bottom line far more than wealthier individuals.
Any budget (American elitist or not) depends on the balance between income and outflow. How can anyone not grasp that we have an integrated global economy where most benefit from global trade?
What kept *most* Americans economically afloat during the last couple of decades when housing and health costs soared? China and Walmart. The continuation of the American middle-class lifestyle was made possible by *that* pricing structure.
Did American corporations and capital-holders benefit. Yes? For that is capitalism and the system we embraced - and continue to embrace for better or worse - and sometimes, worse (at least compared to even those market economies that utilize planning that we Americans eschew).
Did some Americans "pay" for trade-benefits (not to mention the gains in national security) through loss of jobs in the industrial sectors? Absolutely, again.
Did this nation acknowledge or attempt to effectively mitigate those losses and, yes, sacrifice through any sort of effective intervention? Heck, no. Remember the outcry over extended unemployment compensation during the worst of the recession.
But taking away other American jobs simply will not bring back that employment or FIX this. For it is not the JUST the "probably digitally savvy professionals" who "work" in the export sector. Rather do you have any idea how many entrepreneurial start-ups depend on imports? Or how many American manufacturing companies stay in business only due to imported parts?
To turn this into an "elitism" argument defies reality. To make it purely political - how Trump used it on the campaign trail.
He HAD no effective intervention - and so now uses the power of the Executive Office (mind you, not that of our Congressional representatives) to deploy a crude weapon that could substantially undercut the US economy and impact many, many millions beyond those who lost manufacturing jobs.
So, sure let's share the pain. Let the middle-class on reduced budgets now feel it. Let pensioners have their pension funds thrown into turmoil.
We'll get those elitists, for sure.
I can barely believe I'm reading this. As for the rest, more TDS on steroids.
Nothing short of a new planets' distance from this malady is going to be enough.
One of the strategies employed by AMERICAN manufacturers to keep their US-based factories open and running is to diversify their product line. Manufacture high-value items in the US but then import cheaper lower-valued products to round out a product line. Attract customers by offering both a high-end product paired with US-based customer service but simultaneously be able to offer a value-line product.
US manufacturers are NOW a substantial purchaser of imports. It keeps US factories open - with imports not only a source of raw materials or components but a vital component of a sales strategy.
Trump is a failed real estate developer turned reality TV host. The man knows nothing of manufacturing economics.
The reason he is using tariffs as a tool is simply because it is the only one he HAS - tariffs fall under the purview of the Executive Branch. Not because it is a good or effective strategy.
I can barely believe I'm reading this. As for the rest, more TDS on steroids.
Nothing short of a new planets' distance from this malady is going to be enough.
Quote:
What kept *most* Americans economically afloat during the last couple of decades when housing and health costs soared? China and Walmart. The continuation of the American middle-class lifestyle was made possible by *that* pricing structure.
Fine. Replace "most" with lower-income Americans. The percentages of disposable income allocated to mortgages/rent and health costs soared in the 1990s and 2000 while available income for other categories (food, discretionary purchases) fell.
At one point, Walmart alone was the 8th largest GLOBAL trading partner with China.
Theoretically - in an impulsive trade war, as opposed to pointed negotiations - take that outlet (not necessarily Walmart alone, but inexpensive foreign-manufactured consumer goods, imported food) away or alter the pricing structure and see what happens.
Do the math.
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.
