Jouhou wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

WASHINGTON — U.S. allies seeking to avoid the steel and aluminum tariffs approved by President Donald Trump might be asked to step up their financial commitments to NATO.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told CNBC in a Friday interview that the president will consider national security, noting that Trump wants to be sure that NATO gets more funding from European allies who Trump has previously criticized for not contributing enough.

https://www.defensenews.com/news/2018/0 ... xemptions/

So what is it then? Protecting US workers in the steel industry or more money or the defense industry? And Trump doesn't care a bit about the steel manufactory.

It's trump not understanding economics at all.

And the cheering crowds are at the same level?

Dutchy wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

https://www.defensenews.com/news/2018/0 ... xemptions/

So what is it then? Protecting US workers in the steel industry or more money or the defense industry? And Trump doesn't care a bit about the steel manufactory.

It's trump not understanding economics at all.

And the cheering crowds are at the same level?

I've spent a great deal of time explaining basic economics to my co-workers in the past year, so yes. Most Americans have no clue how the economy works.

Jouhou wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

It's trump not understanding economics at all.

And the cheering crowds are at the same level?

I've spent a great deal of time explaining basic economics to my co-workers in the past year, so yes. Most Americans have no clue how the economy works.

As always, education is the key.

I'll put my hand up and say I don't understand the economics of this.

But is it anything like how they said the stock market would collapse if Trump was elected?

The reason there were fears about the stock market is precisely the protectionist rhetoric during the campaign. Since so far he hadn't done anything on that front, there was no reason for a collapse.

There tariffs, as misguided as they are, are a drop in the bucket so far.

Dutchy wrote:

As always, education is the key.

As always, if people do not think like you, they are stupid, right?

Route66 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

As always, education is the key.

As always, if people do not think like you, they are stupid, right?

Difference between facts and how you interpreted that facts. And then there is game-theory of course.

Denying of facts is stupid, argumentation sometimes is stupid.

But enlighten us, why do you think this is fair and this is the smartest way to approach it.

Jouhou wrote:

The Texas state gop actually made it a part of their party platform to remove critical thinking skills from school curriculums.

Really? What was their argumentation? That is just stupid. We need critical thinking, it is good for the economy, democracy and humans in general.

Although I don't subscribe to the point of view that baby boomers are more critical thinkers. From a personal experience, I think that millennials are more critical, just because in the status quo, they are the ones whom don't get a chance and baby boomers are the ones whom really benefit from the status quo. At least this is the case in The Netherlands.

Dutchy wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And the cheering crowds are at the same level?

I've spent a great deal of time explaining basic economics to my co-workers in the past year, so yes. Most Americans have no clue how the economy works.

As always, education is the key.

Some of these people are not stupid, nor poorly educated. They lack critical thinking skills, which weren't incorporated into school curriculums until sometime in the latter half of the 20th century. This is precisely why boomers hate millenials. Critical thinking skills are key to an advanced economy but make people less obedient. Without them, people just believe what they are told without first asking themselves if it's true.

The Texas state gop actually made it a part of their party platform to remove critical thinking skills from school curriculums.

tommy1808 wrote:

Route66 wrote:

but exports to the US $22 billion in automobiles. Not too much ambiguity there, is there?

Germany only exported ~550.000 cars to the US in 2016. You exported some 400-450.000 cars because of BMW, Mercedes and VW, they easily make up those 15 billion. BMW alone did 2/3 of that before the latest expansion*. Looking at a trade balace between to contries in isolation made sense when almost nothing was re-exportet and supply chains where mostly domestic.

Best regards
Thomas

* numbers from or extrapolated from here
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=w ... BZUMxX1yNg

You're going to have to do better than that. Nobody but you cares about number of vehicles. And the source you provided is nearly 3 years old. Let's get real, the Germans are build cars in the US because of the high productivity of US workers, low taxes, strong incentives (subsidies), a good business climate and the most OPEN free trade in the world.. Whatever they are doing in the US, they are doing it for their own benefit.

Meanwhile, explain why Europeans pay 2.5% to import cars to the US but the US pays 10% to import autos into the EU.

Is this another one of those cases where whatever the Eu does is *good* and whatever the US does (for the very same reasons) is *bad*. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

Dutchy wrote:

But enlighten us, why do you think this is fair and this is the smartest way to approach it.

I'll tell you right now, i don't know. But nobody here does either and many of the arguments here are just silly kneejerks, often made by people who have barely even visited the hemisphere, much less have some basic understanding of the place. Like most in the US though, I do know that it is time the US government started looking very hard at the advantages we give our competitors, to our own detriment..

Route66 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But enlighten us, why do you think this is fair and this is the smartest way to approach it.

I'll tell you right now, i don't know. But nobody here does either and many of the arguments here are just silly kneejerks, often made by people who have barely even visited the hemisphere, much less have some basic understanding of the place. Like most in the US though, I do know that it is time the US government started looking very hard at the advantages we give our competitors, to our own detriment..

What advantages trade partners of the US have above the US industry? Economics is economics, the US isn't special and you don't need to visit the place.

seb146 wrote:

Route66 wrote:

Do you even ask why? No? Let me bring something up:

Construction, more than likely, includes small, independent contractors who have one or two employees and they need seven or ten for a temporary project; a day or two. Blacks need steady and permanent work. We all do. Maybe we should do some research as to why Blacks are not in construction at the rate of Latinos. Maybe it goes deeper than they don't want to sit outside Home Depot hoping for a temporary job they will be under paid for. Maybe it does not fit their schedule? Maybe they have too many low wage jobs they are working to go apply for a higher paying construction job?

The surface facts are useful, but sometimes digging deeper is also telling.

Too funny. If blacks were too busy working low wage jobs to apply for "high wage" construction jobs, there wouldn't be much of a black employment "crisis", would there?
We all know why blacks are not working construction. A) They don't speak Spanish and won't get hired by the Mexican supervisor, and B) Construction is barely paying living wages now - because there was too much cheap labor flowing across the border. That matter is now largely resolved, I predict we will see a noticeable improvement in wages. Of course, the Trump haters will kneejark about how that is suddenly *bad* too.

Dutchy wrote:

Route66 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

But enlighten us, why do you think this is fair and this is the smartest way to approach it.

I'll tell you right now, i don't know. But nobody here does either and many of the arguments here are just silly kneejerks, often made by people who have barely even visited the hemisphere, much less have some basic understanding of the place. Like most in the US though, I do know that it is time the US government started looking very hard at the advantages we give our competitors, to our own detriment..

What advantages trade partners of the US have above the US industry? Economics is economics, the US isn't special and you don't need to visit the place.

Actually, yes you do need to have some clue about the people you are dealing with, and from where they come, otherwise you are ignorant. If a person were better traveled, he would understand the Trump mentality a little better, for example. That person might know that Trump survived 30+ years in a cut-throat New York real estate industry, and everything that that entails. And that a person like that will say many, many things. HUUGE things. What Americans would call "talking shit".

So as expected, the end result so far is, there is no blanket tariff and it is useful in the NAFTA negotiations. The Eu kneejerked and made some threats. Did they think the New York Trump was going to take that with a wimper? If so, they are ignorant as well.

But you asked about advantages we give away. Start with China. Too much to list and you don't really want to hear it anyway. But we could also easily ask why US pays 10% to ship cars into the EU but you pay 2.5% into the US.

In fact, a stat noticeably missing from all this, how do various countries rate with trade restrictions and tariffs? Do you know your crap doesn't stink too? https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ta ... data_e.htm

I am pretty sure that this will be another case where our loudest foreign critics are actually bigger sinners.

Trump and real estate, ah yeah, he did see the marked in Manhattan at the beginning of '80-ish, I give him that. But he also lost a lot of money and so business wise I don't have him in high remarks, sorry.

And as a diplomat, I don't have him in high remarks either. Bullying might have worked-ished in New York, but on the world stage, no chance.

Although you have a point with China, they are actually dumping products on the world market to gain share, including steel.

Dutchy wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

The Texas state gop actually made it a part of their party platform to remove critical thinking skills from school curriculums.

Really? What was their argumentation? That is just stupid. We need critical thinking, it is good for the economy, democracy and humans in general.

Although I don't subscribe to the point of view that baby boomers are more critical thinkers. From a personal experience, I think that millennials are more critical, just because in the status quo, they are the ones whom don't get a chance and baby boomers are the ones whom really benefit from the status quo. At least this is the case in The Netherlands.

I was actually saying the boomers mostly missed out on critical thinking skills.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

-Texas GOP

Route66 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Route66 wrote:

Do you even ask why? No? Let me bring something up:

Construction, more than likely, includes small, independent contractors who have one or two employees and they need seven or ten for a temporary project; a day or two. Blacks need steady and permanent work. We all do. Maybe we should do some research as to why Blacks are not in construction at the rate of Latinos. Maybe it goes deeper than they don't want to sit outside Home Depot hoping for a temporary job they will be under paid for. Maybe it does not fit their schedule? Maybe they have too many low wage jobs they are working to go apply for a higher paying construction job?

The surface facts are useful, but sometimes digging deeper is also telling.

Too funny. If blacks were too busy working low wage jobs to apply for "high wage" construction jobs, there wouldn't be much of a black employment "crisis", would there?
We all know why blacks are not working construction. A) They don't speak Spanish and won't get hired by the Mexican supervisor, and B) Construction is barely paying living wages now - because there was too much cheap labor flowing across the border. That matter is now largely resolved, I predict we will see a noticeable improvement in wages. Of course, the Trump haters will kneejark about how that is suddenly *bad* too.

Prove it. Or are you just parroting anti-Latino BS? Have you spoken to a good cross-section of the African-American community to form a legitimate hypothesis? Or do you just hate Latinos because they are the minority to hate this week?

Side note: This is quite a turn around. I remember, not so long ago, that we needed to shut up about "Black Lives Matter" and they were all criminals and so forth. Now you are defending African Americans. I wonder how long that will last.....

Jouhou wrote:

I've spent a great deal of time explaining basic economics to my co-workers in the past year, so yes. Most Americans have no clue how the economy works.

That's good. Then maybe you can explain to us why Trump is wrong on trade in light of the U.S. having a trade deficit for over 40 consecutive years and counting.

MSPNWA wrote:

That's good. Then maybe you can explain to us why Trump is wrong on trade in light of the U.S. having a trade deficit for over 40 consecutive years and counting.

Easy. Basic economics. Trade deficits are a fairly meaningless concept. And have been since the glory days of mercantilism prompted a Scotsman named Adam Smith to dismantle it centuries ago.

Heres a (Canadian) article from over a year ago that sums it up quite succinctly.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... r-nonsense

In a nutshell:

"Suppose China were to amass a trade surplus with the U.S. on this basis. Great — that entitles China to hold lots and lots of U.S. dollars, which are good for precisely two things: buying U.S. products, or lending to those who would like to do the same.

There’s no sense, then, in which China’s gain is America’s loss. They both gain. That’s how trade works: it only takes place if both sides gain. The point of exporting goods and services is not to pile up mountains of foreign currency reserves, as if these were desirable in themselves. It is so that we can purchase other country’s goods and services: the things that can more efficiently be made elsewhere."

Perhaps it is too complex for some minds, but it is fairly basic economics.

ElPistolero wrote:

Easy. Basic economics. Trade deficits are a fairly meaningless concept. And have been since the glory days of mercantilism prompted a Scotsman named Adam Smith to dismantle it centuries ago.

I paused right there.Your knowledge of simple economics is too simple. Continuous, long-run trade deficits are not a positive phenomenon. It means the deficit was financed with debt which one day has to be repaid, and it likely means the deficit country has lost the skilled labor and capital to competitively produce the products it has been continuously importing, leaving a long-term hole in the overall economy that leads to job losses and lower wages across a broader spectrum.

Route66 wrote:

Actually, yes you do need to have some clue about the people you are dealing with, and from where they come, otherwise you are ignorant. If a person were better traveled, he would understand the Trump mentality a little better, for example. That person might know that Trump survived 30+ years in a cut-throat New York real estate industry, and everything that that entails. .

He survived as in didn't die? Or managed to not die and stay a two bit player that was a punchline for decades between his multiple bankruptcies?

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Easy. Basic economics. Trade deficits are a fairly meaningless concept. And have been since the glory days of mercantilism prompted a Scotsman named Adam Smith to dismantle it centuries ago.

I paused right there.Your knowledge of simple economics is too simple. Continuous, long-run trade deficits are not a positive phenomenon. It means the deficit was financed with debt which one day has to be repaid, and it likely means the deficit country has lost the skilled labor and capital to competitively produce the products it has been continuously importing, leaving a long-term hole in the overall economy that leads to job losses and lower wages across a broader spectrum.

Gee, then you must hate the Republican tax bill.

Route66 wrote:

Meanwhile, explain why Europeans pay 2.5% to import cars to the US but the US pays 10% to import autos into the EU.

Is this another one of those cases where whatever the Eu does is *good* and whatever the US does (for the very same reasons) is *bad*. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

No, it is one of those cases where there US trade delegation felt some tariff was more important than cars, because we pretty much don´t buy your cars anyways, while the EU trade negotiation team felt cars are important.

Last time i checked the US already had 18 (!) penalty tariffs against EU products, just as many as the oh so unfair China, while the EU has just one (!) vs. the US, and that is for Bioethanol.

And, of course, we are not talking about tariffs, which are negotiated between two countries and so are the different tariffs on cars, but about penalty tariffs, which the US dishes out based on the President having a good night sleep or not and that are by nature unilateral.

Of course German car brands manufacture in the US for their own good, but that doesn´t doesn´t change that Germany is responsible for more car exports out of the US than for car imports into the US, so in fact you run a deficit with us, and in that light it makes sense why both sides agreed to the tariff disparity even beyond the perceived importance of the products class.So, unless you can demonstrate that the average tariff isn´t on eye level, you simply have no point to make.

best regards
Thomas

Route66 wrote:

Meanwhile, explain why Europeans pay 2.5% to import cars to the US but the US pays 10% to import autos into the EU.

Is this another one of those cases where whatever the Eu does is *good* and whatever the US does (for the very same reasons) is *bad*. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

You seems to ignore the fact that your numbers are wrong? If there is a 2,5 % tariff on sedan cars that the US trade team did not care about, they have put a 25 % tariff on trucks and vans. So the average tariff on EU cars was supposed to be roughly 10 %.

Looks like a whole bunch of people suddenly want to discuss things which they have no knowledge of other that the one gained through a few tweets the other day.

Okay, so US cars are more heavily taxed when imported to the EU than the other way round? So what?
You think anybody in the EU would buy a gas guzzling US car without those import taxes, knowing gas is as expensive as almost $6/USG overhere??? Come on!
Of course not and the US trade negotiators knew too that US cars are just not very suitable for the EU market, hence them not wasting any time on trying to lower those purely theoretical tariffs, but rather focusing on other segments of their US automotive industry which do make products suitable for export to the EU like for instance trucks where the US has a large tariff advantage over the EU even...

Besides, I wonder: how is Mr Trump going to tax a US manufactured BMW? More heavily than a Mexican assembled Ford?
And if his aim is to produce all cars locally, surely he'll come to see the last BMW be sent oversees and fire the thousands of people liked to that, in person too?

Mr. seems to be Trump obsessed with a trade deficit of which he has no good understanding clearly.
The trade deficit isn't there because of unfair trade, but because of a combination of unique consumer overspending with government underspending in the US!
Indeed, Americans have a habit of spending to their last dollar, whereas people in other countries generally do not do such: they buy less and save up more...
In that perspective, it's interesting indeed that Mr. Trump has decided to give a huge tax break, as that will fire up US consumers to spend even more, hence it will more certainly extend the US trade deficit further while emptying the government's pockets, after which it will have to go borrowing (abroad in many cases), 2 things he said he would tackle?!
What he should have done instead is increase public spending. It would have grown the US domestic economy much more, hence it would cut the trade deficit AND give the US top notch infrastructure once again which in 10 years time would have given it a competitive advantage.
But of course, it's contrary to a pseudo-religious belief which states low taxes are always good and public spending is always bad: it's not.

Nevertheless, it's interesting that Mr Trump now suddenly suggest making a deal where both the EU and the US abolish all mutual taxes: the previous US administration was in the process of working out such a deal with the EU, called TTIP, yet Mr Trump immediately put that on hold when he took office...

I would also like to point out the irony in people thinking tariffs would help the trade deficit. Come on people, use your brains for a minute. You make basic materials more expensive, international business will simply move their production lines outside of our borders. This is on top of retaliatory tariffs.

MSPNWA wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

I've spent a great deal of time explaining basic economics to my co-workers in the past year, so yes. Most Americans have no clue how the economy works.

That's good. Then maybe you can explain to us why Trump is wrong on trade in light of the U.S. having a trade deficit for over 40 consecutive years and counting.

Simple answer : the US has the dollar printing presses.

If you want the situation to change, we're in agreement. Your "way of life" might be impacted, though.

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Easy. Basic economics. Trade deficits are a fairly meaningless concept. And have been since the glory days of mercantilism prompted a Scotsman named Adam Smith to dismantle it centuries ago.

I paused right there.Your knowledge of simple economics is too simple. Continuous, long-run trade deficits are not a positive phenomenon. It means the deficit was financed with debt which one day has to be repaid, and it likely means the deficit country has lost the skilled labor and capital to competitively produce the products it has been continuously importing, leaving a long-term hole in the overall economy that leads to job losses and lower wages across a broader spectrum.

Quite. My knowledge of simple economics is so simple that I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that the trade "deficit was financed by debt". What debt is who incurring? How much of this debt is actually related to trade (hint: re-read the end of the article).

It's a nice soundbite, one that no doubt appeals to a certain type of voter in every party/country, but it's far too vague for my simple mind to make sense of. So go on, explain it to us. Good luck.

As for the rest, the entire point of trade is to focus on that which one can produce competitively, and move away from that which one cannot produce competitively. I suppose we could move away from that approach and demand that each country build its own aircraft (or that each state in the US have its own airline, for that matter), because if they don't, "skilled labour", "long-term hole in the economy" etc, but we both know that would be economic folly that would burden local/national economies and damage jobs in more competitive sectors.

Further, in this specific case, it's not clear to me why capital wouldn't be made available if the US needed to ramp up local aluminum or steel production, nor is it clear to me that future investment will benefit labour rather than focus on automation.

That said, there is a school of economic thought that preaches the type of self-reliance you seem to be advocating: It's called Juche, and it's practised extensively in North Korea. Hasn't really worked out for them, though.

ElPistolero wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Easy. Basic economics. Trade deficits are a fairly meaningless concept. And have been since the glory days of mercantilism prompted a Scotsman named Adam Smith to dismantle it centuries ago.

I paused right there.Your knowledge of simple economics is too simple. Continuous, long-run trade deficits are not a positive phenomenon. It means the deficit was financed with debt which one day has to be repaid, and it likely means the deficit country has lost the skilled labor and capital to competitively produce the products it has been continuously importing, leaving a long-term hole in the overall economy that leads to job losses and lower wages across a broader spectrum.

Quite. My knowledge of simple economics is so simple that I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that the trade "deficit was financed by debt". What debt is who incurring? How much of this debt is actually related to trade (hint: re-read the end of the article).

(over-)Simplified formula: Savings - Investment = Exports - Imports

If the US wants to address the trade deficit Trump needs to do something to encourage people to have more savings in the bank and/or make the US less attractive to foreign investors.

A mood dependent tariff policy is fairly good to accomplish less foreign investments in the long run. Funny thing, if that works out and foreign investment is reduced, he will sell the "improved" trade balance as a "win".

best regards
Thomas

Jouhou wrote:

Gee, then you must hate the Republican tax bill.

Answer the question I asked you.

And that's a "no". Most of it is sound economics. Hating sound economics would make me either nefarious or a fool.

Jouhou wrote:

I would also like to point out the irony in people thinking tariffs would help the trade deficit. Come on people, use your brains for a minute. You make basic materials more expensive, international business will simply move their production lines outside of our borders. This is on top of retaliatory tariffs.

With brains you'll know tariffs are one tool to help with balancing trade balances.

ElPistolero wrote:

Quite. My knowledge of simple economics is so simple that I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that the trade "deficit was financed by debt". What debt is who incurring? How much of this debt is actually related to trade (hint: re-read the end of the article).

Here's a quiz question: if I buy products from you valued at $100, and you buy $80 of products back from me, and I don't have or want to give you the cash to pay you the $20 difference, how do you think we just made that transaction?

BTW, blanket self-reliance is not what anybody is advocating. That's a straw man.

And I'm not going to put any weight in the opinions of a Canadian socialist. He clearly doesn't have a good grasp of the human behavior element of economics.

Should US citizens get higher wages, higher spending power (and higher polluting power along with it) just because they're US citizens, or should it be because they're more productive, making competitive products that sell at high prices ?

MSPNWA wrote:

Jouhou wrote:

Gee, then you must hate the Republican tax bill.

Answer the question I asked you.

And that's a "no". Most of it is sound economics. Hating sound economics would make me either nefarious or a fool.

Jouhou wrote:

I would also like to point out the irony in people thinking tariffs would help the trade deficit. Come on people, use your brains for a minute. You make basic materials more expensive, international business will simply move their production lines outside of our borders. This is on top of retaliatory tariffs.

With brains you'll know tariffs are one tool to help with balancing trade balances.

ElPistolero wrote:

Quite. My knowledge of simple economics is so simple that I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that the trade "deficit was financed by debt". What debt is who incurring? How much of this debt is actually related to trade (hint: re-read the end of the article).

Here's a quiz question: if I buy products from you valued at $100, and you buy $80 of products back from me, and I don't have or want to give you the cash to pay you the $20 difference, how do you think we just made that transaction?

BTW, blanket self-reliance is not what anybody is advocating. That's a straw man.

And I'm not going to put any weight in the opinions of a Canadian socialist. He clearly doesn't have a good grasp of the human behavior element of economics.

I thought we were engaging in light hearted banter about simple minds and simple economics, but I fear there may be more truth to the former than I first thought.

The short answer is that it's not a zero sum game because unless you're only ever going to have $100 or $80 or whatever, other sources of income will make up the difference.

The long answer is that I routinely buy products from Apple, and Apple does not buy products from me. I carry out these transactions without incurring any debt. It's not magic.

Like countries, I have other sources of income. In fact, buying the Apple product actually enables me to benefit from other sources of income. I could pay myself $800 to make an iPhone myself, but it would take months, and $800 spread out over many months isn't much of an income, given that I can earn a lot more doing something else. Or I can buy it from Apple and earn more elsewhere. Hence the economic benefit of buying goods from someone who can produce them more efficiently.

Now your analogy may hold true if $100 or $80 is all the two are going to have for eternity, but that's a unrealistic and questionable assumption. Especially if buying $100 of goods will allow you to make $140 elsewhere.

That aside, Coyne has been described as a great many things, but 'socialist' is not one of them. He's an open advocate of Adam Smith's philosophies and a consistent critic of government subsidies and protectionism. The article itself is based on Smith's economic principles. I accept that it's a complex subject, but it seems his argument has passed you by completely. So much so that, instead of engaging his argument, you've resorted to name-calling. Ok, I guess, but based on your own words, it's hard not to conclude that you've simply picked up some technical sounding words and terms along the way without understanding what they actually mean.

ElPistolero wrote:

I thought we were engaging in light hearted banter about simple minds and simple economics, but I fear there may be more truth to the former than I first thought.

You can say that again.

ElPistolero wrote:

The short answer is that it's not a zero sum game because unless you're only ever going to have $100 or $80 or whatever, other sources of income will make up the difference.

There is no "other income" in international trade balances. That is the total bill when all incomes and expenses are included. The deficient country pays for the gap somehow. Again, I have to ask you where that $20 comes from. If you come up with the answer, you'll realize none of the payment options are positive over the long-run.

ElPistolero wrote:

The long answer is that I routinely buy products from Apple, and Apple does not buy products from me. I carry out these transactions without incurring any debt. It's not magic.

That's a flawed analogy. If you buy from Apple and pay for the product, you have an equal trade balance. That's good. In fact you are illustrating the importance of avoiding long-run trade deficits without even realizing it. You exported something of value (time, skills, capital, etc.), and with those proceeds imported something you didn't produce--an Apple product. It's a win-win. So let's hypothetically reduce the U.S. trade imports to one international supplier--Apple. For over forty years the U.S. has been importing from Apple without being able to pay for the products in full with their money earned from exports. That's not good. That means would be you buying a new iPhone every year for over four decades without being able to pay for it in full. So we go back to the previous question. How are you paying for that phone?

ElPistolero wrote:

Like countries, I have other sources of income. In fact, buying the Apple product actually enables me to benefit from other sources of income. I could pay myself $800 to make an iPhone myself, but it would take months, and $800 spread out over many months isn't much of an income, given that I can earn a lot more doing something else. Or I can buy it from Apple and earn more elsewhere. Hence the economic benefit of buying goods from someone who can produce them more efficiently.

You're stuck on believing that countries have some other source of income. In general your explanation is correct, but it's stated for a perfect world.

You have one major part incorrect and it highlights the issue with "free" trade when you're the more advanced country. In general current trade isn't based on efficiency. In a perfect world it would be, but it's not. It's commonly based on cost. China, Mexico, etc. aren't making products for the U.S. because they're more efficient at allocating labor and capital. Quite the contrary. They're actually highly inefficient sources. But they're cheaper sources, and that's why "free" trade is so dangerous for the more advanced country. Proper trade is about taking advantage of each country's strengths in natural resources, knowledge, capital, labor, technology, etc. But too often that's not the reason trade is made. Instead it's made on cost, and in that situation free trade becomes the great equalizer of nations. It gives a huge boost to the exporting country, but the net effect to the advanced country can be negative.

ElPistolero wrote:

Now your analogy may hold true if $100 or $80 is all the two are going to have for eternity, but that's a unrealistic and questionable assumption. Especially if buying $100 of goods will allow you to make $140 elsewhere.

My analogy was not for a long-run model. You're moving the lines. But let's play. Let's hold U.S. imports at $100. For over forty years they've had less than $100 available to pay for those products (never has the U.S. made even $100 with it, let alone $140). Explain how this can remain positive indefinitely.

ElPistolero wrote:

That aside, Coyne has been described as a great many things, but 'socialist' is not one of them. He's an open advocate of Adam Smith's philosophies and a consistent critic of government subsidies and protectionism. The article itself is based on Smith's economic principles. I accept that it's a complex subject, but it seems his argument has passed you by completely. So much so that, instead of engaging his argument, you've resorted to name-calling. Ok, I guess, but based on your own words, it's hard not to conclude that you've simply picked up some technical sounding words and terms along the way without understanding what they actually mean.

Don't take it from me. Take it from . . . Coyne himself!

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/833489402085138432
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/964391747106172929

So it's now name-calling to call someone what they say they are? Inside I'm chuckling at you believing I pick up technical terms without knowing what they mean.

He publicly advocates for socialist policies. It's clear where he stands. He's not someone to trust for the correct free market solutions. I shouldn't have to explain how socialism is a failure in theory and has been a failure in practice.

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

I thought we were engaging in light hearted banter about simple minds and simple economics, but I fear there may be more truth to the former than I first thought.

You can say that again.

ElPistolero wrote:

The short answer is that it's not a zero sum game because unless you're only ever going to have $100 or $80 or whatever, other sources of income will make up the difference.

There is no "other income" in international trade balances. That is the total bill when all incomes and expenses are included. The deficient country pays for the gap somehow. Again, I have to ask you where that $20 comes from. If you come up with the answer, you'll realize none of the payment options are positive over the long-run.

ElPistolero wrote:

The long answer is that I routinely buy products from Apple, and Apple does not buy products from me. I carry out these transactions without incurring any debt. It's not magic.

That's a flawed analogy. If you buy from Apple and pay for the product, you have an equal trade balance. That's good. In fact you are illustrating the importance of avoiding long-run trade deficits without even realizing it. You exported something of value (time, skills, capital, etc.), and with those proceeds imported something you didn't produce--an Apple product. It's a win-win. So let's hypothetically reduce the U.S. trade imports to one international supplier--Apple. For over forty years the U.S. has been importing from Apple without being able to pay for the products in full with their money earned from exports. That's not good. That means would be you buying a new iPhone every year for over four decades without being able to pay for it in full. So we go back to the previous question. How are you paying for that phone?

ElPistolero wrote:

Like countries, I have other sources of income. In fact, buying the Apple product actually enables me to benefit from other sources of income. I could pay myself $800 to make an iPhone myself, but it would take months, and $800 spread out over many months isn't much of an income, given that I can earn a lot more doing something else. Or I can buy it from Apple and earn more elsewhere. Hence the economic benefit of buying goods from someone who can produce them more efficiently.

You're stuck on believing that countries have some other source of income. In general your explanation is correct, but it's stated for a perfect world.

You have one major part incorrect and it highlights the issue with "free" trade when you're the more advanced country. In general current trade isn't based on efficiency. In a perfect world it would be, but it's not. It's commonly based on cost. China, Mexico, etc. aren't making products for the U.S. because they're more efficient at allocating labor and capital. Quite the contrary. They're actually highly inefficient sources. But they're cheaper sources, and that's why "free" trade is so dangerous for the more advanced country. Proper trade is about taking advantage of each country's strengths in natural resources, knowledge, capital, labor, technology, etc. But too often that's not the reason trade is made. Instead it's made on cost, and in that situation free trade becomes the great equalizer of nations. It gives a huge boost to the exporting country, but the net effect to the advanced country can be negative.

ElPistolero wrote:

Now your analogy may hold true if $100 or $80 is all the two are going to have for eternity, but that's a unrealistic and questionable assumption. Especially if buying $100 of goods will allow you to make $140 elsewhere.

My analogy was not for a long-run model. You're moving the lines. But let's play. Let's hold U.S. imports at $100. For over forty years they've had less than $100 available to pay for those products (never has the U.S. made even $100 with it, let alone $140). Explain how this can remain positive indefinitely.

ElPistolero wrote:

That aside, Coyne has been described as a great many things, but 'socialist' is not one of them. He's an open advocate of Adam Smith's philosophies and a consistent critic of government subsidies and protectionism. The article itself is based on Smith's economic principles. I accept that it's a complex subject, but it seems his argument has passed you by completely. So much so that, instead of engaging his argument, you've resorted to name-calling. Ok, I guess, but based on your own words, it's hard not to conclude that you've simply picked up some technical sounding words and terms along the way without understanding what they actually mean.

Don't take it from me. Take it from . . . Coyne himself!

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/833489402085138432
https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/964391747106172929

So it's now name-calling to call someone what they say they are? Inside I'm chuckling at you believing I pick up technical terms without knowing what they mean.

He publicly advocates for socialist policies. It's clear where he stands. He's not someone to trust for the correct free market solutions. I shouldn't have to explain how socialism is a failure in theory and has been a failure in practice.

It's late, so excuse any mistakes.

- I really don't understand why you insist on viewing international trade in isolation. You still haven't explained the rationale for that, and all of your subsequent arguments are predicated on it. Does domestic economic activity not matter? Does international trade not contribute to domestic economic activity?

- The Apple analogy isn't flawed. It's reflective of trade. The US does not buy planes from Europe. AA buys planes from airbus. The airbus planes contribute to economic activity (including taxable profits) in the US. And so on. I'm not sure why you would assume that the US can't pay for airbus imports when individual US companies clearly can? Or why profits generated through the use of airbus aircraft don't count as domestic wealth generation in the US? Is it because you're referring to consumer debt? In which case, do you believe consumer debt will go away if trade is balanced? Goes back to my earlier post, which included a simple question that you conveniently dodged for several posts: who is incurring what debt?

- As for Coyne, dig a little deeper. You'll find that he refuses to label himself and routinely mocks people who do. Surely it's not lost on you that he's using those tweets to troll people like you, who insist on calling him a socialist (or any other label). In one of the tweets you've posted, he calls himself a "conservative liberal socialist libertarian". Seems his message his bypassed you again. Which is becoming a theme. Read what he writes, instead of assuming that he's a 'socialist' (or whatever Trump voters like calling his critics). He's routinely on record advocating free market economics (see here: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... t-telecoms)

- But that's besides the point. You still haven't explained what aspect of his argument you disagree with. All you've done is declare him a socialist because that's what you Trump voters call any Trump critic (notwithstanding the fact that Trump's protectionist policies, which you are defending here, are inherently socialist). Go on, take apart his argument. Any aspect of it.

MSPNWA wrote:

There is no "other income" in international trade balances. That is the total bill when all incomes and expenses are included. The deficient country pays for the gap somehow. Again, I have to ask you where that $20 comes from. If you come up with the answer, you'll realize none of the payment options are positive over the long-run.

There is one very vital flaw in your logic. You pretend the US$ has value outside of the US, but with few exceptions it doesn´t have. It is just paper with ink on it.

Quick google search, without making a deep effort to check how good the sources are, gives the following:

~ 10 Trillion of sum total trade deficits
~ 6 Trillion in foreign held US national debt
~ 3.7 Trillion sum total in FDI

Seems like every single US$ that wasn´t used to buy stuff in the US found its way back into the US either by the owner buying treasury bonds or by investing it in the USA.

As long as the delta between interest and inflation rate minus the RoI of buying abroad (=simplified how much cheaper was it) is below the inflation rate for the treasury bonds or the same for FID just with the investors RoI instead of the interest rates, you get all those things effectively for free.

To use

ElPistolero wrote:

Apple

example: China can only use the surplus 20$ to buy treasury bonds or to invest in US jobs. If the do the former it increases the demand for treasury bonds (=interest rate down), in the latter it creates jobs. How exactly is that bad for the US?

Interesting side note, it also means that all the US$ from the drug trade found their way in the US as investments or treasury bonds.

best regards
Thomas

ElPistolero wrote:

It's late, so excuse any mistakes.

- I really don't understand why you insist on viewing international trade in isolation. You still haven't explained the rationale for that, and all of your subsequent arguments are predicated on it. Does domestic economic activity not matter? Does international trade not contribute to domestic economic activity?

It's too simplify the situation to see the effects. You break it down to make it easier to understand. For your theory, long-run trade deficits are only potentially a good idea if it causes robust domestic growth above and beyond what the domestic market itself could have produced to offset the losses incurred in trade. If we add U.S. domestic activity into the equation, it only supports the major issue with running continuous trade deficits because the U.S. has not come close to realizing a return on that investment. In 2016, the U.S. current account deficit was -2.6% of total GDP. In fact the average since 1980 has been -2.66% of GDP. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... unt-to-gdp On a simplified level, that essentially means U.S. real GDP has been inflated by a comparable amount by debt and foreign investment in our assets. So in other words, you can essentially knock of that amount to our GDP every year. Now 3% is considered solid GDP growth (although we haven't achieved that since 2005). If we "pay" for our trade deficit with our domestic "profits", essentially we cut that trade deficit off of our GDP, leaving a flatlined or declining economy that is has been weak for decades. Now the U.S. hasn't all done this and instead financed much of that trade with debt and foreign investment, but the end balance of a weak economy is the same effect. We've kicked the can down the road. I don't find it a coincidence that real wages in the U.S. have stagnated since the '70s. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/ I don't believe it to be a simple matter of unrelated correlation. Economic theory tells me there should be causation. So right now if I look at the macro evidence, it tells me free trade has often been a mistake for the U.S. and is a piece of the puzzle for a weak economy that's weakening relative to the world. It jives with the economic theory that as whole society gains with free trade, but it also doesn't guarantee that both countries gain. It fits with my belief that the more advanced the country is, the less there is to be gained with free trade. And since the U.S. has been at or near the top of the food chain for decades, that's a problem. `

ElPistolero wrote:

- The Apple analogy isn't flawed. It's reflective of trade. The US does not buy planes from Europe. AA buys planes from airbus. The airbus planes contribute to economic activity (including taxable profits) in the US. And so on. I'm not sure why you would assume that the US can't pay for airbus imports when individual US companies clearly can? Or why profits generated through the use of airbus aircraft don't count as domestic wealth generation in the US? Is it because you're referring to consumer debt? In which case, do you believe consumer debt will go away if trade is balanced? Goes back to my earlier post, which included a simple question that you conveniently dodged for several posts: who is incurring what debt?

It's flawed in relation to how you're paying for it. You haven't stated that you haven't been able to pay for the Apple product in full every year with cash, so then the analogy isn't correct when using it for trades that aren't balanced. Your analogy is an example of trade in general. This is specifically long-run unbalanced trade. The question I'm asking is how it's paid for.

ElPistolero wrote:

- As for Coyne, dig a little deeper. You'll find that he refuses to label himself and routinely mocks people who do. Surely it's not lost on you that he's using those tweets to troll people like you, who insist on calling him a socialist (or any other label). In one of the tweets you've posted, he calls himself a "conservative liberal socialist libertarian". Seems his message his bypassed you again. Which is becoming a theme. Read what he writes, instead of assuming that he's a 'socialist' (or whatever Trump voters like calling his critics). He's routinely on record advocating free market economics (see here: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... t-telecoms)

If one advocates for socialist policies and even calls himself a socialist, what do you think the chances are that the person is a socialist? The reason I know he's one is because I read and hear what he says! Seriously, you're implying that you know more about him than he does. He's a socialist - there is no "grade" one needs to qualify someone as an "official" socialist. Case closed. Don't deny it. Just own it.

ElPistolero wrote:

- But that's besides the point. You still haven't explained what aspect of his argument you disagree with. All you've done is declare him a socialist because that's what you Trump voters call any Trump critic (notwithstanding the fact that Trump's protectionist policies, which you are defending here, are inherently socialist). Go on, take apart his argument. Any aspect of it.

Sure I did. He made a blanket statement about trade deficits not making one difference to a country's welfare. That's a bold claim. Isn't that what we're debating? You sound like someone without a good argument if your only thoughts are branding opposing views as Trump-this, Trump-that.

tommy1808 wrote:

Seems like every single US$ that wasn´t used to buy stuff in the US found its way back into the US either by the owner buying treasury bonds or by investing it in the USA.

Now you're getting it! So either we're both flawed, or we're both heading on the right track.

tommy1808 wrote:

As long as the delta between interest and inflation rate minus the RoI of buying abroad (=simplified how much cheaper was it) is below the inflation rate for the treasury bonds or the same for FID just with the investors RoI instead of the interest rates, you get all those things effectively for free.

To use

ElPistolero wrote:

Apple

example: China can only use the surplus 20$ to buy treasury bonds or to invest in US jobs. If the do the former it increases the demand for treasury bonds (=interest rate down), in the latter it creates jobs. How exactly is that bad for the US?

What's more valuable in the long-run, jobs, or the company that creates them? What's more valuable - just working the jobs, or working the jobs and owning the company?

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

It's late, so excuse any mistakes.

- I really don't understand why you insist on viewing international trade in isolation. You still haven't explained the rationale for that, and all of your subsequent arguments are predicated on it. Does domestic economic activity not matter? Does international trade not contribute to domestic economic activity?

It's too simplify the situation to see the effects. You break it down to make it easier to understand. For your theory, long-run trade deficits are only potentially a good idea if it causes robust domestic growth above and beyond what the domestic market itself could have produced to offset the losses incurred in trade. If we add U.S. domestic activity into the equation, it only supports the major issue with running continuous trade deficits because the U.S. has not come close to realizing a return on that investment. In 2016, the U.S. current account deficit was -2.6% of total GDP. In fact the average since 1980 has been -2.66% of GDP. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... unt-to-gdp On a simplified level, that essentially means U.S. real GDP has been inflated by a comparable amount by debt and foreign investment in our assets. So in other words, you can essentially knock of that amount to our GDP every year. Now 3% is considered solid GDP growth (although we haven't achieved that since 2005). If we "pay" for our trade deficit with our domestic "profits", essentially we cut that trade deficit off of our GDP, leaving a flatlined or declining economy that is has been weak for decades. Now the U.S. hasn't all done this and instead financed much of that trade with debt and foreign investment, but the end balance of a weak economy is the same effect. We've kicked the can down the road. I don't find it a coincidence that real wages in the U.S. have stagnated since the '70s. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/ I don't believe it to be a simple matter of unrelated correlation. Economic theory tells me there should be causation. So right now if I look at the macro evidence, it tells me free trade has often been a mistake for the U.S. and is a piece of the puzzle for a weak economy that's weakening relative to the world. It jives with the economic theory that as whole society gains with free trade, but it also doesn't guarantee that both countries gain. It fits with my belief that the more advanced the country is, the less there is to be gained with free trade. And since the U.S. has been at or near the top of the food chain for decades, that's a problem. `

ElPistolero wrote:

- The Apple analogy isn't flawed. It's reflective of trade. The US does not buy planes from Europe. AA buys planes from airbus. The airbus planes contribute to economic activity (including taxable profits) in the US. And so on. I'm not sure why you would assume that the US can't pay for airbus imports when individual US companies clearly can? Or why profits generated through the use of airbus aircraft don't count as domestic wealth generation in the US? Is it because you're referring to consumer debt? In which case, do you believe consumer debt will go away if trade is balanced? Goes back to my earlier post, which included a simple question that you conveniently dodged for several posts: who is incurring what debt?

It's flawed in relation to how you're paying for it. You haven't stated that you haven't been able to pay for the Apple product in full every year with cash, so then the analogy isn't correct when using it for trades that aren't balanced. Your analogy is an example of trade in general. This is specifically long-run unbalanced trade. The question I'm asking is how it's paid for.

ElPistolero wrote:

- As for Coyne, dig a little deeper. You'll find that he refuses to label himself and routinely mocks people who do. Surely it's not lost on you that he's using those tweets to troll people like you, who insist on calling him a socialist (or any other label). In one of the tweets you've posted, he calls himself a "conservative liberal socialist libertarian". Seems his message his bypassed you again. Which is becoming a theme. Read what he writes, instead of assuming that he's a 'socialist' (or whatever Trump voters like calling his critics). He's routinely on record advocating free market economics (see here: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew- ... t-telecoms)

If one advocates for socialist policies and even calls himself a socialist, what do you think the chances are that the person is a socialist? The reason I know he's one is because I read and hear what he says! Seriously, you're implying that you know more about him than he does. He's a socialist - there is no "grade" one needs to qualify someone as an "official" socialist. Case closed. Don't deny it. Just own it.

ElPistolero wrote:

- But that's besides the point. You still haven't explained what aspect of his argument you disagree with. All you've done is declare him a socialist because that's what you Trump voters call any Trump critic (notwithstanding the fact that Trump's protectionist policies, which you are defending here, are inherently socialist). Go on, take apart his argument. Any aspect of it.

Sure I did. He made a blanket statement about trade deficits not making one difference to a country's welfare. That's a bold claim. Isn't that what we're debating? You sound like someone without a good argument if your only thoughts are branding opposing views as Trump-this, Trump-that.

tommy1808 wrote:

Seems like every single US$ that wasn´t used to buy stuff in the US found its way back into the US either by the owner buying treasury bonds or by investing it in the USA.

Now you're getting it! So either we're both flawed, or we're both heading on the right track.

tommy1808 wrote:

As long as the delta between interest and inflation rate minus the RoI of buying abroad (=simplified how much cheaper was it) is below the inflation rate for the treasury bonds or the same for FID just with the investors RoI instead of the interest rates, you get all those things effectively for free.

To use

ElPistolero wrote:

Apple

example: China can only use the surplus 20$ to buy treasury bonds or to invest in US jobs. If the do the former it increases the demand for treasury bonds (=interest rate down), in the latter it creates jobs. How exactly is that bad for the US?

What's more valuable in the long-run, jobs, or the company that creates them? What's more valuable - just working the jobs, or working the jobs and owning the company?

Late again, so will keep it short.

- interesting argument, but it still seems to excessively discount the role of imports and exports in spurring domestic economic activity. I'm not convinced that reducing imports won't adversely affect domestic producers/consumers. You seem to discount that aspect entirely.

- I found the bit about the US economy weakening relative to the world...odd. Do you believe the US can maintain its relative position in the long term by cutting imports? Just going to point out that India and China accounted for a huge chunk (up to 50%) of the world' GDP until 500 years ago. Demographic trends and the end of colonial mismanagement mean they're going to grow relative to the US regardless of what the US does.

- Coyne advocates for free market economics and calls himself a "conservative" and "libertarian" in the same tweet you quote. By your own logic he's a conservative free market libertarian. Yet you insist on calling him a socialist. Note that he is on record refusing to call himself anything because he (correctly) thinks these labels result in tribes of self-quarantine. He's just trolled you successfully. And revealed your ideological bias: you only acknowledge the bits and pieces that suit your views, and ignore anything that doesn't. Doesn't say much for your objectivity, does it? Are you going to "own it"?

MSPNWA wrote:

What's more valuable in the long-run, jobs, or the company that creates them? What's more valuable - just working the jobs, or working the jobs and owning the company?

Depends on how much value that imported stuff has for the new owner. If selling, maintaining, repairing and supporting cheap made in China smartphones creates more business and more jobs as selling the, then lower, number of more expensive made in the US phones, there is a net benefit for all parties involved. How would if effect US car sales and US car exports if wiring looms had to be made by US workers on US wages, instead of having those labor intensive steps made in a low wage country and importing from there?

In my industry i can stay away from Made in China, sometimes we can even go full on made in Germany up from the PCBs, but in many fields either you import from lower wage countries, of you stop being competitive. Of course tariffs can "fix" that, but are in essence a consumer paid subsidies for businesses. That income may be better spend on new technology, products and more efficient production, or simply less work to make a living, which also may create more job openings, than for keeping noncompetitive companies afloat.

It is not exactly secret that the US steel and aluminum industry is much more troubled by not being efficient than by having to pay high wages. Now where imports are actually subsidized, tariffs are fine, but if someone else can just do it cheaper, that is your problem. And it remains your problem. Either because you lose jobs in those businesses, or because everyone is having to pay the "company owner is to greedy to invest" tax that tariffs more often than not are.

If i look at this: https://www.glassdoor.de/Stundenlohn/Un ... irect=true the US steel worker makes pretty much exactly the same as a German steel worker. Just that the German employer pays ~23% on top of that in social security, for at least 30 working days paid vacation, at least 1.1 monthly payments in extra cash benefit, no hire-and-fire, a 35 hour working week and oh yeah, Energy is much more expensive than in the USA....... so how exactly are tariffs required to level the playing field?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

What's more valuable in the long-run, jobs, or the company that creates them? What's more valuable - just working the jobs, or working the jobs and owning the company?

Depends on how much value that imported stuff has for the new owner. If selling, maintaining, repairing and supporting cheap made in China smartphones creates more business and more jobs as selling the, then lower, number of more expensive made in the US phones, there is a net benefit for all parties involved. How would if effect US car sales and US car exports if wiring looms had to be made by US workers on US wages, instead of having those labor intensive steps made in a low wage country and importing from there?

In my industry i can stay away from Made in China, sometimes we can even go full on made in Germany up from the PCBs, but in many fields either you import from lower wage countries, of you stop being competitive. Of course tariffs can "fix" that, but are in essence a consumer paid subsidies for businesses. That income may be better spend on new technology, products and more efficient production, or simply less work to make a living, which also may create more job openings, than for keeping noncompetitive companies afloat.

It is not exactly secret that the US steel and aluminum industry is much more troubled by not being efficient than by having to pay high wages. Now where imports are actually subsidized, tariffs are fine, but if someone else can just do it cheaper, that is your problem. And it remains your problem. Either because you lose jobs in those businesses, or because everyone is having to pay the "company owner is to greedy to invest" tax that tariffs more often than not are.

If i look at this: https://www.glassdoor.de/Stundenlohn/Un ... irect=true the US steel worker makes pretty much exactly the same as a German steel worker. Just that the German employer pays ~23% on top of that in social security, for at least 30 working days paid vacation, at least 1.1 monthly payments in extra cash benefit, no hire-and-fire, a 35 hour working week and oh yeah, Energy is much more expensive than in the USA....... so how exactly are tariffs required to level the playing field?

best regards
Thomas

True story: many electronic products are manufactured in China not because of cheap labor, but because China puts quotas on rare earth exports. this can be bypassed by using the materials to make products within their borders. Rare earths are critical to electronics and "green" tech. China has the world's largest known deposit of rare earths. The U.S. Has the second largest known deposit. Why does the US rare earth mine keep going bankrupt? Because the ore is radioactive. US environmental and worker safety regulations make it uneconomical. China is ok with sick workers and contaminated rivers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountai ... earth_mine

Personally, I'm ok with that. They are doing us a favor by keeping their contamination on the other side of the planet.

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The title is wrong, it should be: Trump starts a trade war and thus will weaken the world's economy.

Spare us your anti Trump nonsense.

How about my country trying to help bring back JOBS for PEOPLE?

The opposite will be the case. Industries "protected" by tariffs see no reason for Innovation, see no reason to become competetive, whilst the US sales and Distribution owned by foreign importers will reduce Jobs- If Trump carries on like that, America first will become America behind.

PanHAM wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The title is wrong, it should be: Trump starts a trade war and thus will weaken the world's economy.

Spare us your anti Trump nonsense.

How about my country trying to help bring back JOBS for PEOPLE?

The opposite will be the case. Industries "protected" by tariffs see no reason for Innovation, see no reason to become competetive, whilst the US sales and Distribution owned by foreign importers will reduce Jobs-

~5 Jobs lost for every job saved, and even if it was just 11:10, it would still be a net loss.

If Trump carries on like that, America first will become America behind.

That is what he is paid for after all.

best regards
Thomas

Facts are so overrated anyway.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-fundraising-speech-trump-says-he-made-up-trade-claim-in-meeting-with-justin-trudeau/ar-BBKeeiY?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

President on state visit. This is just plain stupid, armature, shameful, nothing else.

Indeed and he is proud of it. How on earth does anyone trust anything he says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... 620e697bfe

And now he vows to take care of all the negative trade deficit the US has with other countries.

I can't help but wonder, how can he do that? To have a positive trade balance, a country has to export more than import, just like Germany. This trade deficit in the US is the result of a large country that simply consumes more than it can produce. They have to keep importing foreign products to meet the high demands of the American consumer. Trump can't reverse that by simply asking American economy to produce more all of a sudden, nor can he suddenly stop buying foreign products (he can impose tariffs though).

I am interested in how other countries respond to this.

Eyad89 wrote:

And now he vows to take care of all the negative trade deficit the US has with other countries.

I can't help but wonder, how can he do that? .

easy.. make the USA unattractive for foreign investments to depress those to zero and the trade deficit is all but gone.

best regards
Thomas

Eyad89 wrote:

And now he vows to take care of all the negative trade deficit the US has with other countries.

I can't help but wonder, how can he do that? To have a positive trade balance, a country has to export more than import, just like Germany. This trade deficit in the US is the result of a large country that simply consumes more than it can produce. They have to keep importing foreign products to meet the high demands of the American consumer. Trump can't reverse that by simply asking American economy to produce more all of a sudden, nor can he suddenly stop buying foreign products (he can impose tariffs though).

I am interested in how other countries respond to this.

In Germany, wage control. Not imposed by a socialist state, but agreed upon by the people. So Trump's actions and words are heard not just by the leaders of other countries, but by average people and companies who make an actual effort to be competitive, instead of just trying to punish the competition.

The worst part is that the US knows how to be competitive, look at the GAFAs. There, people (who all have at least a college degree) are paid gigantic salaries, yet they make gigantic profits. That's the only way to compete for an advanced country.

Breaking News: Trump is not just Putins lacky, he is a true planned economy communist......

He demands from the European Union to tell private companies how much Steel they can export to the US ........

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Breaking News: Trump is not just Putins lacky, he is a true planned economy communist......

He demands from the European Union to tell private companies how much Steel they can export to the US ........

best regards
Thomas

uhhmmmm what? Don't even see how that would work.

Once again, as time goes on, the tripe in these threads becomes more and more amusing. South Korea has already negotiated a different trade deal with the Trump administration. China is suddenly back to the negotiating table, which they dismissed last year (I forget the name of those talks but it was completely overlooked by the media) Now, Germany is following suit. Maybe they know they are vulnerable to reasonable arguments? Keyword: reasonable.

Germany is willing to offer the U.S. concessions in order to stop President Donald Trump from imposing tariffs on European steel and aluminum, exposing a divide with France on how to avert a trade war.
http://www.autonews.com/article/2018032 ... l-aluminum

It looks like what Trump really wants is not to balance the trade deficit or bring millions of jobs back (fortunately for him, as that's impossible), but to get some nice soundbites or rather tweetbites to give his electorate. He will get those. The trade deficit will not change one bit.

If US citizens wanted a "better" trade balance, they had the tools in their hands all along anyway, it's called buying stuff made in the US.