salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I was just stating my experience that illegal immigrants make up a large part of the people I've worked with in the construction industry. They are all good people.

How would you know if they are illegals? Don't try to tell me that they just volunteered that information because they like to talk to gringos.

Because when you work around them for a time and know the owners of the business they work for and they say so and so is illegal I tend to believe them.

Its fairly obvious after a while based on how they live and act in certain situations who's legal and who isn't. Of course it varies.

ElPistolero wrote:

The two largest exporters of steel to the US are Canada and the EU. In January 2018, they exported roughly US$ 475 million of steel each, or $950 million between them. China, by comparison, is at around $90 million (less than Japan).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43264200

I think it's fair to say that Canada and the EU - with their heavy emphasis on social welfare, high taxes, universal healthcare and strong regulation, are operating on a more difficult playing field than the US. I will grant, however, that the intended domestic audience (Trump voters) for this announcement isn't known for being well-informed. Or informed. On this or any other issue.

Many obstacles for your argument. One is you're simply speculating that other countries are more "efficient" because of their perceived economic standing. But as we know, not all EU countries are created equal (and that EU import value data doesn't line up well with US ITC import volume data I've linked to below), and even highly developed nations such as Italy and France (two of the EU import contributors), are actually well below the US in average wages, leaving the door wide open for the possibility of steel imports from those countries being driven once again by cost, not efficiency or quality. This is actually exemplified further by Canada. You'd expect Canada to be on relatively equal footing with the US. And it is. Canada is a relatively equal steel trading partner with the US, and this is shown by the fact that Canada is also the USA's largest steel export destination. So the road goes both ways fairly well, and this is a sign of a healthy, fair trade balance.

What's import to note is that the US still produces much more steel than it imports. However, it's also clear to see how that is being eroded by cheap imports. China is just one, moderately-sized source. There's clearly many others with their own cheap labor contributing to the problem. There's simply no strong evidence to support the notion that the US is importing steel because of a lack of efficiency.

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/p ... rts-us.pdf
https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/p ... rts-us.pdf

P.S. I'd watch who call uninformed on economic matters. Ad hominems are fast way to admit defeat in a debate.

AirFiero wrote:

To those who want real information instead of believing the bulls###...

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Discusses Steel Tariffs: “People Are Exaggerating Considerably”…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ssion=true

Like the guy above said, ok for the EU but not the US??
EU Imposes Anti-Dumping Duties on Chinese Steel
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/ar ... nese-steel

...and Canada

From this article...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... ce=twitter

“We will always be there to defend workers and industry. We showed it on softwood lumber and showed it with the Boeing case,” Trade Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne told reporters in Ottawa.

...soooo, it’s ok for Canada to protect Canadian jobs and companies, but NOT ok for Americans??

Here's what Canada said:

"Should restrictions be imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum products, Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers,” Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement

'Should' is a conditional word, in case English isn't your forte. Canada isn't threatening to proactively stop US exports to protect Canadian jobs. It's threatening to retaliate against US measures that would hurt Canadian jobs.

Let me simplify it to a level you may understand. Canada's position is: if the US doesn't do anything, Canada won't do anything. It's not the same as what the US is doing.

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The two largest exporters of steel to the US are Canada and the EU. In January 2018, they exported roughly US$ 475 million of steel each, or $950 million between them. China, by comparison, is at around $90 million (less than Japan).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43264200

I think it's fair to say that Canada and the EU - with their heavy emphasis on social welfare, high taxes, universal healthcare and strong regulation, are operating on a more difficult playing field than the US. I will grant, however, that the intended domestic audience (Trump voters) for this announcement isn't known for being well-informed. Or informed. On this or any other issue.

Many obstacles for your argument. One is you're simply speculating that other countries are more "efficient" because of their perceived economic standing. But as we know, not all EU countries are created equal (and that EU import value data doesn't line up well with US ITC import volume data I've linked to below), and even highly developed nations such as Italy and France (two of the EU import contributors), are actually well below the US in average wages, leaving the door wide open for the possibility of steel imports from those countries being driven once again by cost, not efficiency or quality. This is actually exemplified further by Canada. You'd expect Canada to be on relatively equal footing with the US. And it is. Canada is a relatively equal steel trading partner with the US, and this is shown by the fact that Canada is also the USA's largest steel export destination. So the road goes both ways fairly well, and this is a sign of a healthy, fair trade balance.

What's import to note is that the US still produces much more steel than it imports. However, it's also clear to see how that is being eroded by cheap imports. China is just one, moderately-sized source. There's clearly many others with their own cheap labor contributing to the problem. There's simply no strong evidence to support the notion that the US is importing steel because of a lack of efficiency.

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/p ... rts-us.pdf
https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/p ... rts-us.pdf

P.S. I'd watch who call uninformed on economic matters. Ad hominems are fast way to admit defeat in a debate.

Inefficiency is relative. I only say they're less efficient because they evidently can't produce steel as cheaply as exporters like the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Australia and Canada. Otherwise, why import?

The wage argument doesn't make sense either. Canada and the western EU countries all have significantly lower income inequality than the US, so while it's fair to say that California...err.. yhe US has more rich people (pushing average wages higher), it does not follow that US wages for steel producing jobs are higher than in, for example, France. If anything, the higher tax and regulatory burden in EU nations makes the cost of employing workers and operating in the EU significantly higher than in the US.

As for the ad hominem bit, is it really a personal attack to point out that most Trump voters view this as being only about Chinese dumping? See this thread for evidence. Sometimes a fact is just a fact.

Route66 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Route66 wrote:

The construction trade has already been given away to illegals.

Source, please.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/25/ ... 3777840295
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-b ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-c ... ion-trump/

Interesting thing linking these three articles: None use the word "illegal." YOU say that illegals are taking our jobs. These articles say that Latinos are. Why would any licenced and reputable construction company hire illegals? Do you know the liability and lawsuits and fines that creates?

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I was just stating my experience that illegal immigrants make up a large part of the people I've worked with in the construction industry. They are all good people.

How would you know if they are illegals? Don't try to tell me that they just volunteered that information because they like to talk to gringos.

Because when you work around them for a time and know the owners of the business they work for and they say so and so is illegal I tend to believe them.

Its fairly obvious after a while based on how they live and act in certain situations who's legal and who isn't. Of course it varies.

My experience is that all whites are racist. How do I know this? I have been around a couple of whites who acted racists, so I can just tell.

See how silly that sounds?

I am not saying that there are no illegals in construction, but your argument is silly.

Defending this action will be difficult regardless of the merits it can be based on, because this is a complete reversal of decades of US policy.
Free trade has been the motto of the US for more than half a century. The US pushed other developed countries to lower trade barriers. The US pushed developing countries to lower theirs too, sometimes with devastating consequences for these countries, that are even poorer now than before.
The US pushed for accelerated entry of China into the WTO.

So now, saying that the world the US has created is "unfair" can't be taken well anywhere in the world outside the US. And it isn't received that well in the US either...

MSPNWA wrote:

Many obstacles for your argument. One is you're simply speculating that other countries are more "efficient" because of their perceived economic standing. But as we know, not all EU countries are created equal (and that EU import value data doesn't line up well with US ITC import volume data I've linked to below), and even highly developed nations such as Italy and France (two of the EU import contributors), are actually well below the US in average wages, leaving the door wide open for the possibility of steel imports from those countries being driven once again by cost, not efficiency or quality. This is actually exemplified further by Canada.

So, only countries with same or higher wages than US wages should be able to export to the US ?

dz09 wrote:

I googled "aluminum tariffs under Obama" and nearly every hit that came back was this current tariff spike under tRump. There were articles about Obama raising tariffs on solar panels from China and tires from China and steel from China. I think one reason there are fewer aluminum plants in the United States is environmental laws. I know of two plants that closed because of tough regulations. Both were located next to the Columbia River. One of those plants now houses a Google server farm.

check the rates in https://hts.usitc.gov/?query=aluminum%20extrusions. those tariffs have been in place for a few years now.[/quote]

Very dry, very boring tables. I do not doubt the information is there, I just don't know where. Where in your link does it say that Obama placed tariffs on aluminum? I am not asking to be a jerk, I am asking because I can not read those tables well. Thank you.

ElPistolero wrote:

Inefficiency is relative. I only say they're less efficient because they evidently can't produce steel as cheaply as exporters like the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Australia and Canada. Otherwise, why import?

The wage argument doesn't make sense either. Canada and the western EU countries all have significantly lower income inequality than the US, so while it's fair to say that California...err.. yhe US has more rich people (pushing average wages higher), it does not follow that US wages for steel producing jobs are higher than in, for example, France. If anything, the higher tax and regulatory burden in EU nations makes the cost of employing workers and operating in the EU significantly higher than in the US.

As for the ad hominem bit, is it really a personal attack to point out that most Trump voters view this as being only about Chinese dumping? See this thread for evidence. Sometimes a fact is just a fact.

That changes the whole argument. Efficiency and lower prices are not the same thing.

The US is primarily importing because it's cheaper material, not because it's globally more efficient to have steel produced in country X and importing it. That is quite clear looking at who the US exports to and imports from.

If we switch to median income, which is a better representation of the steel labor force, the significant gap between the US and Western Europe remains. That would be an important factor in explaining the import/export gap to the US.

You went way beyond Chinese dumping in your broad painting of roughly half the US.

Aesma wrote:

So, only countries with same or higher wages than US wages should be able to export to the US ?

I hope that isn't a serious question.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

salttee wrote:

How would you know if they are illegals? Don't try to tell me that they just volunteered that information because they like to talk to gringos.

Because when you work around them for a time and know the owners of the business they work for and they say so and so is illegal I tend to believe them.

Its fairly obvious after a while based on how they live and act in certain situations who's legal and who isn't. Of course it varies.

My experience is that all whites are racist. How do I know this? I have been around a couple of whites who acted racists, so I can just tell.

See how silly that sounds?

I am not saying that there are no illegals in construction, but your argument is silly.

What is silly about it? If you don't think illegal immigrants tend to concentrate in manual labor "blue collar" jobs over "white collar" jobs then you are completely delusional and just out to be contrarian.

There's nothing in my statement that's silly in any way. The fact is you simply see more illegal immigrants working in jobs like construction, landscaping and other similar jobs. The evidence, including my own experience, quoted in this very thread prove that. That's all I said.

MSPNWA wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So, only countries with same or higher wages than US wages should be able to export to the US ?

I hope that isn't a serious question.

Well you seriously support tariffs because my country has lower wages than the US, don't you ?

My country also has universal health care, meaning nobody thinks twice before going to the doctor, how much is that worth ?
My country also has strict environmental laws, fracking is illegal for example. How much is that worth ?
Anyone can study to be a doctor, engineer, lawyer, physicist, for free, how much ?

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Because when you work around them for a time and know the owners of the business they work for and they say so and so is illegal I tend to believe them.

Its fairly obvious after a while based on how they live and act in certain situations who's legal and who isn't. Of course it varies.

My experience is that all whites are racist. How do I know this? I have been around a couple of whites who acted racists, so I can just tell.

See how silly that sounds?

I am not saying that there are no illegals in construction, but your argument is silly.

What is silly about it? If you don't think illegal immigrants tend to concentrate in manual labor "blue collar" jobs over "white collar" jobs then you are completely delusional and just out to be contrarian.

There's nothing in my statement that's silly in any way. The fact is you simply see more illegal immigrants working in jobs like construction, landscaping and other similar jobs. The evidence, including my own experience, quoted in this very thread prove that. That's all I said.

"I heard someone say that someone in construction at a site across town is illegal, therefore, the rate of construction companies hiring illegals is out of control. They're takin' our jerbs!" Again: There are illegals working in construction, but it is not the out of control number you think it is.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

My experience is that all whites are racist. How do I know this? I have been around a couple of whites who acted racists, so I can just tell.

See how silly that sounds?

I am not saying that there are no illegals in construction, but your argument is silly.

What is silly about it? If you don't think illegal immigrants tend to concentrate in manual labor "blue collar" jobs over "white collar" jobs then you are completely delusional and just out to be contrarian.

There's nothing in my statement that's silly in any way. The fact is you simply see more illegal immigrants working in jobs like construction, landscaping and other similar jobs. The evidence, including my own experience, quoted in this very thread prove that. That's all I said.

"I heard someone say that someone in construction at a site across town is illegal, therefore, the rate of construction companies hiring illegals is out of control. They're takin' our jerbs!" Again: There are illegals working in construction, but it is not the out of control number you think it is.

Where, at any point, did I say it was out of control? Where, at any point, did I say illegal immigrants working in those fields was a bad thing? I HIRED these businesses knowing they employed illegal immigrants because I don't care as long as they did good work. You are just picking a fight.

MSPNWA wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Inefficiency is relative. I only say they're less efficient because they evidently can't produce steel as cheaply as exporters like the U.K., Germany, Sweden, Australia and Canada. Otherwise, why import?

The wage argument doesn't make sense either. Canada and the western EU countries all have significantly lower income inequality than the US, so while it's fair to say that California...err.. yhe US has more rich people (pushing average wages higher), it does not follow that US wages for steel producing jobs are higher than in, for example, France. If anything, the higher tax and regulatory burden in EU nations makes the cost of employing workers and operating in the EU significantly higher than in the US.

As for the ad hominem bit, is it really a personal attack to point out that most Trump voters view this as being only about Chinese dumping? See this thread for evidence. Sometimes a fact is just a fact.

That changes the whole argument. Efficiency and lower prices are not the same thing.

The US is primarily importing because it's cheaper material, not because it's globally more efficient to have steel produced in country X and importing it. That is quite clear looking at who the US exports to and imports from.

If we switch to median income, which is a better representation of the steel labor force, the significant gap between the US and Western Europe remains. That would be an important factor in explaining the import/export gap to the US.

You went way beyond Chinese dumping in your broad painting of roughly half the US.

Aesma wrote:

So, only countries with same or higher wages than US wages should be able to export to the US ?

I hope that isn't a serious question.

We're going in circles.

Feel free to demonstrate how Sweden, Germany, Australia, Canada etc all manage to produce steel more cheaply than US producers despite being higher tax, higher regulation social welfare states. I suspect it boils down to efficiency.

Also, wage comparisons would make sense in a zero tax, zero regulation world, but they do not make sense here. The actual cost of employing a worker, as opposed to simply focusing on their take home pay, is more relevant from a production point of view. It doesn't make sense to argue that the cost of employing someone in the US is the same as the cost of employing someone in France - with its work week restrictions, vacation entitlements and whatnot. The US is pretty close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to worker regulations.

Also, what median income tables are you using?

Dutchy wrote:

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

So Trump cares about the environment after all.

CCGPV wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Route66 wrote:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/25/ ... 3777840295
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-b ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-c ... ion-trump/

You do understand that you stated the construction trade has been "given away" to illegals. Iplying they have taken it over, right? Is 12% taking over?

CCGPV wrote:

Have you ever done major commercial or residential work? Roofing, masonry, landscaping and framing in particular. Undocumented or non-legitimate document having workers do a lot of the work. At least in my experience in various locations.

I put a roof on a location a few years ago and the only citizens were the owner of the business. He said Americans simply don't stick around long enough.

Well that's proof if I've ever heard proof before!

Or you could look at the research that has been done on it:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-7 ... le/2617560

And this is from the Washington Examiner which is the "conservative" DC paper....

Tugg

I was just stating my experience that illegal immigrants make up a large part of the people I've worked with in the construction industry. They are all good people.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you probably live in the southwest. You only see this phenomenon in the southwest. One of the reasons why people can afford housing down there.

ElPistolero wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

To those who want real information instead of believing the bulls###...

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross Discusses Steel Tariffs: “People Are Exaggerating Considerably”…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ssion=true

Like the guy above said, ok for the EU but not the US??
EU Imposes Anti-Dumping Duties on Chinese Steel
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/ar ... nese-steel

...and Canada

From this article...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... ce=twitter

“We will always be there to defend workers and industry. We showed it on softwood lumber and showed it with the Boeing case,” Trade Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne told reporters in Ottawa.

...soooo, it’s ok for Canada to protect Canadian jobs and companies, but NOT ok for Americans??

Here's what Canada said:

"Should restrictions be imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum products, Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers,” Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement

'Should' is a conditional word, in case English isn't your forte. Canada isn't threatening to proactively stop US exports to protect Canadian jobs. It's threatening to retaliate against US measures that would hurt Canadian jobs.

Let me simplify it to a level you may understand. Canada's position is: if the US doesn't do anything, Canada won't do anything. It's not the same as what the US is doing.

Dismissing your attempt at condescending dismissal, my country has as much right as any to protect OUR jobs and companies.

Trump Adviser Unloads Steel Stocks Days Before Tariff :

As the saying goes, timing is everything.

Investor and former regulatory advisor Carl Icahn dumped $31.1 million of stock in a Wisconsin company that relies heavily on steel to make its products last week, days before President Donald Trump said he'd impose stiff tariffs on steel imports.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/icahn-sold ... mp-tariff/

Mortyman wrote:

Trump Adviser Unloads Steel Stocks Days Before Tariff :

As the saying goes, timing is everything.

Investor and former regulatory advisor Carl Icahn dumped $31.1 million of stock in a Wisconsin company that relies heavily on steel to make its products last week, days before President Donald Trump said he'd impose stiff tariffs on steel imports.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/icahn-sold ... mp-tariff/

Dear world: please retaliate by sanctioning people like this. Thanks.

Tugger wrote:

And this is from the Washington Examiner which is the "conservative" DC paper....

Years ago when the jobless quota was rather high here the administration tried to work on that
via banning seasonal workers (agriculture) from Poland, Bulgaria, ... .
The farmers got really mad: One noted:
German "Arbeitssuchende" as replacement nevere managed to work a full 8 hour day
( and tended to quit after the first day ) also they
were flabbergasted that Aspargus also grows on Sundays and demands harvest on that day too.

Tugger wrote:

You do understand that you stated the construction trade has been "given away" to illegals. Iplying they have taken it over, right? Is 12% taking over?

the business still is a local one. you use illegals or legal foreign workers because they are cheaper.
I don't understand his lament.

Same with "cheap chinese" stuff. the outlay for production in China is minimal and proportionally more profit stays in the US.

AirFiero wrote:

Dismissing your attempt at condescending dismissal, my country has as much right as any to protect OUR jobs and companies.

Yes, as much right, as defined by WTO rules, written with US input. The taxes Trump is slapping are in violation of WTO rules, which is why other countries will respond in kind.

"The Wall Street Journal makes the point that “Mr. Trump seems not to understand that steel-using industries in the U.S. employ some 6.5 million Americans, while steel makers employ about 140,000.”

Similarly with photo solar electric: Something like 80% of the workers are engaged in installation. These two tariffs will cut US employment. And meantime China will be improving solar panels. About the same dynamic as trying to exclude Japanese cars.

The other side of this is that wages and benefits for the lower 50% of American workers really does not improving. Europe does it for its workers in part by relying on income tax for social benefits. Companies are not expected to pay for medical, retirement (generally), disability, nursing home care. We dump the cost of too many social benefits on employers.

"We will put tariffs on Harley-Davidson, on bourbon and on blue jeans — Levi's,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on German television

Harley-Davidson targets Paul Ryan, Bourbon targets Mitch McConnell - what about Levis?

Trump that clown now wants to put a toll on European cars and said that trade wars would be easy for the US to win.. well good luck with that since the EU is financially bigger than the US and China produces most of the stuff the US consumes.

vfw614 wrote:

Harley-Davidson targets Paul Ryan, Bourbon targets Mitch McConnell - what about Levis?

Just the average Joe and Bob that voted for Trump.

I think the Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell connexions are coincidences. Harley Davidson was already a target more than a decade ago when Bush started another trade war, it's a symbolic brand on both sides of the Atlantic, that's why it's chosen.

For example recently there were 700 Harleys on the Champs Elysées for the funeral of rock star Johnny Hallyday (a fan of the brand) :

Oh, and Mr Trump good luck on the NK issue without the backing of China.

I think the Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell connexions are coincidences. Harley Davidson was already a target more than a decade ago when Bush started another trade war, it's a symbolic brand on both sides of the Atlantic, that's why it's chosen.

I don't think so. It is an effective move to put pressure on the two most influential US lawmakers by targeting their voter base.

Aesma wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dismissing your attempt at condescending dismissal, my country has as much right as any to protect OUR jobs and companies.

Yes, as much right, as defined by WTO rules, written with US input. The taxes Trump is slapping are in violation of WTO rules, which is why other countries will respond in kind.

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE TARRIFFS. Why can’t the US do so as well?

AirFiero wrote:

Aesma wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dismissing your attempt at condescending dismissal, my country has as much right as any to protect OUR jobs and companies.

Yes, as much right, as defined by WTO rules, written with US input. The taxes Trump is slapping are in violation of WTO rules, which is why other countries will respond in kind.

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE TARRIFFS. Why can’t the US do so as well?

No need to shout. I said it already, there are WTO rules. Other countries have tariffs that are legal under WTO rules, Trump proposes tariffs that are illegal.

AirFiero wrote:

Dismissing your attempt at condescending dismissal, my country has as much right as any to protect OUR jobs and companies.

Sure, but by 'protecting' these 140,000 jobs, you're putting many export-oriented jobs in the US at risk. I suspect that export-oriented sectors in the US employ more than 200,000 people, so good luck with that.

PS- I was too harsh. I actually applaud the effort you've put into learning English as a second language. It's an admirable trait. Most people stop at one language.

Jouhou wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Tugger wrote:

You do understand that you stated the construction trade has been "given away" to illegals. Iplying they have taken it over, right? Is 12% taking over?


Well that's proof if I've ever heard proof before!

Or you could look at the research that has been done on it:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-7 ... le/2617560

And this is from the Washington Examiner which is the "conservative" DC paper....

Tugg

I was just stating my experience that illegal immigrants make up a large part of the people I've worked with in the construction industry. They are all good people.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you probably live in the southwest. You only see this phenomenon in the southwest. One of the reasons why people can afford housing down there.

I live in the southeast.

I have no data to back this up other than my experience but there's lots of farming around here and we have seasonal workers from Mexico and other countries in the region come through during the various picking seasons. Their kids even enroll in local schools during this time. I'd imagine some of them stick around after their visa/job expires when they find better paying work and just put down roots. At least that's what I've seen with the limited time I've worked with them.

Aesma wrote:

I think the Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell connexions are coincidences. Harley Davidson was already a target more than a decade ago when Bush started another trade war, it's a symbolic brand on both sides of the Atlantic, that's why it's chosen.

The European Commission already announced that these retaliatory actions were specifically to target high ranking members of the GOP in case Trump started this. They started planning for this eventuality all the way back when Trump took office, and made a lot of noise about limiting imports from the EU.

VSMUT wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think the Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell connexions are coincidences. Harley Davidson was already a target more than a decade ago when Bush started another trade war, it's a symbolic brand on both sides of the Atlantic, that's why it's chosen.

The European Commission already announced that these retaliatory actions were specifically to target high ranking members of the GOP in case Trump started this. They started planning for this eventuality all the way back when Trump took office, and made a lot of noise about limiting imports from the EU.

Aren't "luxury": items targeted first in the initial rounds of a trade dispute?

Could we actually win a trade war with the EU ? I think so...

US cars are taxed 10% if they enter the EU. I say if because in practice very few do. Not because of the tax, but because US manufacturers don't make cars EU people want. I mean, they make some (like Ford with many of its cars) but they're not US made and often aren't even sold in the US, so no reason to make them there anyway.

I have no problem if the US puts the same tax on EU cars entering the US.

Aside from that, since when does the US (or any western country for that matter) know how to win wars ? It's been a very long time since a war has been won...

Trade wars can't be won anyway, everybody loses.

Just saying, I have to wonder why shipping millions of jobs and enriching known enemies was always good for the US as far as our corporations, congress and the 1% have always advocated for lo these many years. Not so much, the US workers. Now, it is destructive, horrible and so damaging to this very economy that has been ravaged by imports and job losses because someone has mentioned some protectionism here. It was good tearing our manufacturing base apart, but not good trying to help it. Not much do I agree with tRump on, but this I must say is long overdue. Do I blame any country, no,no,no. It is our corrupt congress, our corrupt corporations and our greedy and decadent wealthy who never have enough. Power and greed and corruption will be the ruin of of us as it has for every great civilization in history. On this point, if he follows through, I support him.

Aesma wrote:

Aside from that, since when does the US (or any western country for that matter) know how to win wars ? It's been a very long time since a war has been won...

Trade wars can't be won anyway, everybody loses.

Unfortunately this is a religious war as well as an economic one.

WarRI1 wrote:

Just saying, I have to wonder why shipping millions of jobs and enriching known enemies was always good for the US as far as our corporations, congress and the 1% have always advocated for lo these many years. Not so much, the US workers. Now, it is destructive, horrible and so damaging to this very economy that has been ravaged by imports and job losses because someone has mentioned some protectionism here. It was good tearing our manufacturing base apart, but not good trying to help it. Not much do I agree with tRump on, but this I must say is long overdue. Do I blame any country, no,no,no. It is our corrupt congress, our corrupt corporations and our greedy and decadent wealthy who never have enough. Power and greed and corruption will be the ruin of of us as it has for every great civilization in history. On this point, if he follows through, I support him.

This "shipping millions of jobs" subject is more complicated than you portray.

Once upon a time not so long ago, China was seen as a direct military threat as they were aligned with the Soviets and things had nearly gotten out of hand with the Russians several times. Along came Nixon's "China strategy" and we were on the path of splitting the two enemies, which was seen as all to the good. But once we began treating China as a part of the world community, another problem arose: we could not embargo them out of the world economy. We wanted them to become more like ourselves in the assumption that converting them to capitalists would make them more like us and therefore, easier to get along with. (Somewhat similar to the idea that if we gave Iraqis "freedom" they would become western style democracies).

Thus started the slippery slope. The business behavior that you perceive as greed only came later. Maybe we could have nipped this in the bud, if only we would have stopped Honda from selling all those damn motorcycles here in the 60s. That's where all this got started.

Maybe someone should start a fantasy thread about how the world would be now if we had gotten heavy on protectionism way back then.

https://www.gq.com/story/trump-trade-war-mad-kushner

Well... apparently others are pointing out that Trump's temper is somehow causing these ideas to suddenly pop out.

Saltee.

Thus started the slippery slope. The business behavior that you perceive as greed only came later. Maybe we could have nipped this in the bud,


Exactly, we could have should have and did not. We armed and enriched a sworn enemy who is still allied with Russia when the crunch comes. I will not even get into the anti Union aspect of this debacle, where the more jobs over there in the sweat shops sure did a number on unions. Good old Reagan and the ATC did not help.

[twoid][/twoid]

alberchico wrote:

Could we actually win a trade war with the EU ? I think so...

I don’t think so. Add to that provoking China at the same time and the US has the recipe for disaster.

alberchico wrote:

Could we actually win a trade war with the EU ? I think so...

BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen have some of their largest factories in Republican Southwest. Together, German car manufacturers have about 33,000 employees in the United States. Manufacturing parts for car manufacturers employ another 77,000 people, according to The Guardian.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ax-eu-cars

CCGPV wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think the Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell connexions are coincidences. Harley Davidson was already a target more than a decade ago when Bush started another trade war, it's a symbolic brand on both sides of the Atlantic, that's why it's chosen.

The European Commission already announced that these retaliatory actions were specifically to target high ranking members of the GOP in case Trump started this. They started planning for this eventuality all the way back when Trump took office, and made a lot of noise about limiting imports from the EU.

Aren't "luxury": items targeted first in the initial rounds of a trade dispute?

Sure you aren't confusing it with sanctions against regimes like the case with Saddam or Putin? Steel and aluminum aren't exactly luxury items

alberchico wrote:

Could we actually win a trade war with the EU ? I think so...

Sounds a bit abstract to use the term "winning" for a trade war. Would you think you're a winner is you lose 100K jobs and EU loses 120K?
Did a trade war ever actually lead to increased net employment? I have no clue, perhaps there are many examples?

Trade wars are a bit like p1ssing contests: Nobody wins but everybody goes home wet and smelly.

Jalap wrote:

alberchico wrote:

Could we actually win a trade war with the EU ? I think so...

Sounds a bit abstract to use the term "winning" for a trade war. Would you think you're a winner is you lose 100K jobs and EU loses 120K?
Did a trade war ever actually lead to increased net employment? I have no clue, perhaps there are many examples?

Nope, there aren't.

Because there's no such thing as 'winning' a trade war. Losing less than the other party, maybe, but no net economical gain on any side. Especially when protectionist measures are applied off the cuff and without much thought such as the ones Trump is brandishing for the sake of appealing to a low-education base to whom the oversimplistic, feel-good measures actually sound sensible.

Applying tariffs on a low-value commodity in an industrial economy mostly based on adding value to said commodity is just about the daftest thing one can do, if one knew anything about economy. That said, I won't credit Trump with any such knowledge.

The steel / aluminium industry employs a fraction of what industries which use steel and aluminium do. The potential beneficial effect on job creation on one side will be overwhelmingly cancelled out by the potential job destruction in industries in which margins and competitiveness are going to be negatively impacted.

You know, looking at the ignorance of trumpists, maybe the eu should just tariff red states anyways. So they can learn about the global economy the hard way. Just don't blame us blue states, we know better.