If elections continue as normal it shouldn't be needed. Regardless, by either January 2021 or January 2025, the US will have a new president. The first depends on how the election goes, the second will have no matter who wins. Term limits are a thing for that office.
Bismarck: "How DARE you tariff us! We demand you drop them IMMEDIATLY!"
Iowa: "All right. Just drop all of your tariffs and I'll drop mine."
Everyone: ...
Everyone: "Ok, as you wish. Now we'll sell our steel in China, open our industries out there, and use our money to buy quotes of their researches on new techonologies like the green energy you hate to much that is unfortunately the business of the future. We'll see how long you'll be able to play the stallion alone against the world. See you!" China: Come here, come here European and Canadian friends! there's place for everyone! We too are anxious to put into the yankee's a..! Iowa: ... oh, shit...
Everyone: "Ok, as you wish. Now we'll sell our steel in China, open our industries out there, and use our money to buy quotes of their researches on new techonologies like the green energy you hate to much that is unfortunately the business of the future. We'll see how long you'll be able to play the stallion alone against the world. See you!" China: Come here, come here European and Canadian friends! there's place for everyone! We too are anxious to put into the yankee's a..! Iowa: ... oh, shit...
Iowa: that's fine china will tarrif your products 3 times more than us
China: and you must give over your intelectual property to enter this market
when everybody has a trade surplus with you, and you get in a tariff war you always have the high ground
The US definitely has the most to lose. When you simultaneously start trade wars with the rest of the world, you wind up North Korea. Trump even started a trade war with Canada, with which we have a massive trade surplus.
As several news commentators put it, there's no evidence that Trump is directly following the orders of Putin, but he couldn't be doing a better job of doing everything Putin could wish for to bring the US down. The stock market's already down 20% since the start of this year. We'll be in a full-blown recession again before too long.
when everybody has a trade surplus with you, and you get in a tariff war you always have the high ground
Everyone lose in a trade war. But starting it by imposing tariffs on the raw materials you import, to be transformed by your own industry in finished products, is not a particularly bright way to fight it. Then, to fight it by forcing your two main partners and competitors to strenghten their relations while weakening the ones they have with you, brings idiocy to a completely new level.
BTW...
Fadadio said:
Iowa: that's fine china will tarrif your products 3 times more than us
China: and you must give over your intelectual property to enter this market
Everyone:oh shit....
It's a very strange "lesson" coming from Iowa, since EU is ALREADY China's biggest trading partner. In 2017 EU's exports to China accounted for $224 billions (+140% since 2009), vs. $130 billions for US (+86% since 2009). Maybe Iowa has something to learn instead.
The US definitely has the most to lose. When you simultaneously start trade wars with the rest of the world, you wind up North Korea. Trump even started a trade war with Canada, with which we have a massive trade surplus.
As several news commentators put it, there's no evidence that Trump is directly following the orders of Putin, but he couldn't be doing a better job of doing everything Putin could wish for to bring the US down. The stock market's already down 20% since the start of this year. We'll be in a full-blown recession again before too long.
"with which we have a massive trade surplus."
Um you do realize China has an average of several hundred billion dollar trade surplus with us?
"but he couldn't be doing a better job of doing everything Putin could wish for to bring the US down. The stock market's already down 20% since the start of this year. We'll be in a full-blown recession again before too long."
notable economist have pointed out that lower taxes and regulation will offset any trade war letdowns especially when those other countries have surpluses with us.
stock market down 20%?
um its nearly all time highs again where as China took a more than 3% hit a few days ago in its stock market when Trump returned tariffs
whatever other countries try to hit us with our response is often twice if not thrice as devastating, we have the high ground
lol doing everything for Putin?
so Trump selling the best anti tank rockets to Ukraine is totally okay with Russia right?
Trump making Putin look like a paper tiger with empty threats in Syria by Striking Syrian targets twice on two consecutive years despite threats that Russia would "strike the platforms that fire the missiles"
not to mention Trump getting NATO allies to spend more on defense
AAAAAAAAAAAAAND Trump exporting American oil to baltic area states which takes away Russias major source of income?
Everyone lose in a trade war. But starting it by imposing tariffs on the raw materials you import, to be transformed by your own industry in finished products, is not a particularly bright way to fight it. Then, to fight it by forcing your two main partners and competitors to strenghten their relations while weakening the ones they have with you, brings idiocy to a completely new level.
BTW...
It's a very strange "lesson" coming from Iowa, since EU is ALREADY China's biggest trading partner. In 2017 EU's exports to China accounted for $224 billions (+140% since 2009), vs. $130 billions for US (+86% since 2009). Maybe Iowa has something to learn instead.
oh boy are you a parody because you just self owned yourself on a massive scale there.
what benefits China is when the said country buys chinese products(exports not imports)
of which the United States accounts for 19% of all chinese trade(431 billion for 2017) compared to the 374 billion for the whole of the EU
The United States is Chinas biggest buyer and the trading partner china cant afford to lose
both the USA and Europe have massive trade deficits with China of which the USA is slapping.
Free Trade agreements take years to make and China and Europe have been at eachothers throats when it comes to trade(especially with Cheap Chinese steel thats subsidized)
to think that they would throw away current disputes is laughable on your part
The United States holds the cards and that picture perfectly captures it with everybody gathering around Trump(instead of ignoring him and slapping butts with china as you would imply)
oh boy are you a parody because you just self owned yourself on a massive scale there.
what benefits China is when the said country buys chinese products(exports not imports)
of which the United States accounts for 19% of all chinese trade(431 billion for 2017) compared to the 374 billion for the whole of the EU
The United States is Chinas biggest buyer and the trading partner china cant afford to lose
both the USA and Europe have massive trade deficits with China of which the USA is slapping.
It's quite easy actually. Maybe even you can understand it. EU is actually the biggest exporter in China. Not only, it's exports are growing at a faster pace than those of US, and at a faster pace than EU's imports from China. US is the second exporter in China, and the bigger importer from China. US decides to further lose market shares on the European and Chinese markets, by imposing tariffs on raw materials (and so making it's own finished products more expensive), and being counter tariffed in exchange. As a result, since US products will be more expensive on the world's market, they will be replaced, not thanks to new trade agreements, but to simple cost considerations. So, EU and China will strenghten their trade relations, and US will have it's own weakened.
Fadadio said:
Free Trade agreements take years to make and China and Europe have been at eachothers throats when it comes to trade(especially with Cheap Chinese steel thats subsidized)
to think that they would throw away current disputes is laughable on your part
You seems to live in a world where US trades with China, and EU doesn't (see Iowa's improbable "lesson"), so EU doesn't know how to do it, and needs some new fantastic trade agreement to begin do it. Sorry, but you live in a fantasy world. EU and China trade pretty well already and, since US products are going to be more expensive both on the European and Chinese markets, they are going to trade more between each-other, while US are going to lose market shares both on the European and Chinese markets. New trade agreements between China and EU can be a FURTHER evolution (and a further backfire for US), but are not needed.
Fadadio said: The United States holds the cards and that picture perfectly captures it with everybody gathering around Trump(instead of ignoring him and slapping butts with china as you would imply)
Clowns tend to gather attention. As already said, everyone loses trade wars. Only because US is going to damage itself more than the others, that's not a good reason to not try to avoid it from the start.
It's quite easy actually. Maybe even you can understand it. EU is actually the biggest exporter in China. Not only, it's exports are growing at a faster pace than those of US, and at a faster pace than EU's imports from China. US is the second exporter in China, and the bigger importer from China. US decides to further lose market shares on the European and Chinese markets, by imposing tariffs on raw materials (and so making it's own finished products more expensive), and being counter tariffed in exchange. As a result, since US products will be more expensive on the world's market, they will be replaced, not thanks to new trade agreements, but to simple cost considerations. So, EU and China will strenghten their trade relations, and US will have it's own weakened.
You seems to live in a world where US trades with China, and EU doesn't (see Iowa's improbable "lesson"), so EU doesn't know how to do it, and needs some new fantastic trade agreement to begin do it. Sorry, but you live in a fantasy world. EU and China trade pretty well already and, since US products are going to be more expensive both on the European and Chinese markets, they are going to trade more between each-other, while US are going to lose market shares both on the European and Chinese markets. New trade agreements between China and EU can be a FURTHER evolution (and a further backfire for US), but are not needed.
Clowns tend to gather attention. As already said, everyone loses trade wars. Only because US is going to damage itself more than the others, that's not a good reason to not try to avoid it from the start.
Again you lack any understanding of how the import export market works
the United States holds the cards because they are the largest buyer of chinese goods and those billions of dollars go into the coffers of the chinese government.
anyone with half a brain realizes that when negotiating trade deals you want the other country to be buying your products.
this is why china devalues its Yuan which gives the strong US dollar lots of buying power
any economist would point that out in a heartbeat that its always preferable to have a trade balance that favors your country in terms of exports while the other country has a trade deficit
more expensive US products are irrelevant in a market where the US dollar is already strong and where we get murdered on trade deficits with other countries
haha looks like the have the pot calling the kettle black here
You are the one who lives in a fantasy world where somehow China and Europe drop tariffs and the demands for intellectual property on Chinas part are also dropped
one does not magically make up massive market shares worth billions when these negotiations can take years to complete
Truth of the matter is that these other countries have had in place huge tariffs on our products and are now complaining that we are evening the odds, Trump even offered them the deal of everyone dropping tariffs at the G7 yet nobody agreed because they know the massive advantage it would give the USA to drop those tariffs
as I already mentioned the USA has the high ground here because it has trade deficits with all of these countries and whatever slapbacks they put on the USA we reply with the same that hits twice if not thrice as hard.
a recent example would be the chinese stock market taking a 3 and a half% hit on fears of a trade war where as the US stock market is nearing all time highs.
The USA cant lose a trade war when its already loser in trade deficits. It can only go higher and will lead to both sides dropping tariffs when they blink(like South Korea recently did with its trade deal with the USA)
Trump even started a trade war with Canada, with which we have a massive trade surplus.
Fadadio said:
"with which we have a massive trade surplus."
Um you do realize China has an average of several hundred billion dollar trade surplus with us?
"China" is not spelled C-A-N-A-D-A.
The rest of this is really long, so I'll just collapse it.
Show
Fadadio said:
notable economist have pointed out that lower taxes and regulation will offset any trade war letdowns especially when those other countries have surpluses with us.
[CITATION REQUIRED]
Fadadio said:
stock market down 20%?
um its nearly all time highs again where as China took a more than 3% hit a few days ago in its stock market when Trump returned tariffs
This was, indeed, directly as a result for the Trump tax breaks for big businesses and tax hikes on the rest of America, but it peaked after that, and went into decline after Trump started his blind frenzied tariff wars with the entire world.
Although apparently, it was more like 26k down to 23k drop, so that's closer to a 12% than 20% that I'd heard previously, so I WAS partly incorrect, there.
Fadadio said:
Trump making Putin look like a paper tiger with empty threats in Syria by Striking Syrian targets twice on two consecutive years despite threats that Russia would "strike the platforms that fire the missiles"
[CITATION REQUIRED]
Trump gave Syria to Putin. Those aren't my words, they're Lindsey Graham's (R-SC).
Incidentally, he also helped create a blockade of the country that has the US's most significant airbase in the region because they wouldn't give Jared Kushner a bribe.
Also, he's trying to cripple US power in the region through that, which absolutely would be to Putin's direct benefit, as Putin would love nothing more than to have the US hamstrung and unable to project power to stabilize the Middle East.
not to mention Trump getting NATO allies to spend more on defense
No, he may be getting European nations to spend more on defense, but that doesn't translated into a stronger NATO because they aren't going to be putting those military forces into NATO, they're beefing up their own military because they believe they can't rely upon NATO as long as Trump is president. There aren't going to BE any "NATO allies" at the rate he's going, since he's already on the verge of getting us kicked out of the G7 for this particular stunt, and we may well see the dissolusion of NATO at this rate, which is ABSOLUTELY Putin's greatest fever dream.
I mean, what was the whole takeaway message of this photograph, again? Isn't that whole "Trump crosses his arms and pouts like a stubborn baby" image famous explicitly because it perfectly encapsulates how well he was getting along with those self-same "NATO allies"?
Fadadio said:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAND Trump exporting American oil to baltic area states which takes away Russias major source of income?
You do of course realize that oil is a fungible resource, and oil prices are fundamentally tied to global supply and demand, as well as the fact that the US, as in the nation-state, does not own any significant supply of oil, right? You know, it's all a bunch of multinational corporations that really aren't tied to any given country because we're the country of Capitalism and we're all opposed to nationalizing this stuff, right? And those corporations are just going to sell it wherever the money is, right?
Finally, I'll just pull this in because it gets more to the heart of the matter:
Fadadio said:
The USA cant lose a trade war when its already loser in trade deficits. It can only go higher and will lead to both sides dropping tariffs when they blink(like South Korea recently did with its trade deal with the USA)
You should understand economic theory before trying to argue against it. At the very least, you should take a couple minutes to read up on what Comparative Advantage is before you try to argue it doesn't exist. Believe me, there certainly are good argument to be made against Neoclassicalist economic policy, but maybe it would help if you actually knew what they were, instead of blindly asserting things that are demonstrably false.
The economic policy that the United States, (in particular, it's more conservative, pro-business elements) has been trying (quite successfully) to export ever since the end of World War 2 has been one of lowering trade barriers for the express reason that it helps the entire global economy thrive. It is THE reason America became a global economic superpower, and now it's being threatened from within.
Also, before things get any more intense, it might be worth reminding people of the commenting guide and that it's fine to debate and disagree, but becoming personally nasty can get you negative feedback or even moderation.
This was, indeed, directly as a result for the Trump tax breaks for big businesses and tax hikes on the rest of America, but it peaked after that, and went into decline after Trump started his blind frenzied tariff wars with the entire world.
Although apparently, it was more like 26k down to 23k drop, so that's closer to a 12% than 20% that I'd heard previously, so I WAS partly incorrect, there.
There is no such thing as partially incorrect, not only did you get the percentage wrong but in your original comment you stated
"The stock market's already down 20% since the start of this year. We'll be in a full-blown recession again before too long."
The stock market has mainly made up those losses as of today and is still hovering near all time highs where as you claimed it was down 20% which was not only an outright false percentage but blatantly false with today's stock market.
your implication that it was down 20% as of today was outright wrong as was the percentage
You are wrong here, simple as that
Very long response below
Show
NWSiaCB said:
Trump gave Syria to Putin. Those aren't my words, they're Lindsey Graham's (R-SC).
Trump pulled the American military out of Syria entirely.
did you even read the article?
all of these comments are what senators "think" will happen not actual policy taking place
and to state the obvious, Syria and Russia are allies by treaty
other than helping to bomb ISIS into oblivion and slapping Assad when he uses chemical or biological weapons we have no interest in regime change there(we don't need another Iraq or libya) especially when it involves possible war with Russia over dead Russian troops
also there are conflicting reports about whether we warned them or not regardless I was in favor of warning Russia because dead Russian troops risk a huge escalation in Syria
Incidentally, he also helped create a blockade of the country that has the US's most significant airbase in the region because they wouldn't give Jared Kushner a bribe.
Also, he's trying to cripple US power in the region through that, which absolutely would be to Putin's direct benefit, as Putin would love nothing more than to have the US hamstrung and unable to project power to stabilize the Middle East.
You are citing some pretty ancient articles there that are all about assumptions and of little or no substance, here let me take you into the current year of 2018 and update you on how Qatar and the USA have deepened ties and kept the airbase running and expanding since then
No, he may be getting European nations to spend more on defense, but that doesn't translated into a stronger NATO because they aren't going to be putting those military forces into NATO, they're beefing up their own military because they believe they can't rely upon NATO as long as Trump is president. There aren't going to BE any "NATO allies" at the rate he's going, since he's already on the verge of getting us kicked out of the G7 for this particular stunt, and we may well see the dissolusion of NATO at this rate, which is ABSOLUTELY Putin's greatest fever dream.
I mean, what was the whole takeaway message of this photograph, again? Isn't that whole "Trump crosses his arms and pouts like a stubborn baby" image famous explicitly because it perfectly encapsulates how well he was getting along with those self-same "NATO allies"?
wow you have reached a new level or wrong on that one
No NATO member aside from the United States can take on Russia alone, so increasing spending for individual defense without NATO assistence is a laughable argument on your part. General mattis who is appointed by Trump said that NATO has the ironclad commitment of the United States. Fact of the matter is NATO members need to be strong enough to hold off a Russian attack long enough for other members(mainly the United States) to join the fight and push Russia back. It is to the benefit of NATO nations to have a stronger defense to be able to hold the line and wait for help because no individual NATO member can withstand Russian might without help.
you are taking these trade disputes WAYYYYYYY out of proportion here, there is no way they would kick the USA out of the G7 for trade disputes and you do realize that there were positive photos as well right?
You do of course realize that oil is a fungible resource, and oil prices are fundamentally tied to global supply and demand, as well as the fact that the US, as in the nation-state, does not own any significant supply of oil, right? You know, it's all a bunch of multinational corporations that really aren't tied to any given country because we're the country of Capitalism and we're all opposed to nationalizing this stuff, right? And those corporations are just going to sell it wherever the money is, right?
Ignorance is bliss on your part
Russia gets 50% of its government funds from Oil exports(which account for 68% of all Russian exports) If you deny business from Russia and states that rely on it you take a huge portion of money out of Russia's coffers which in turn makes Russia think twice about expensive military projects.Oil is the export that makes Russia's world go round and Trump is slamming US oil into the fray to steal business from Russia.I have watched Russia Today for YEARS and all they ever do is trash the practice of Fracking because they know all to well that it eats into Russia's paycheck
Finally, I'll just pull this in because it gets more to the heart of the matter:
You should understand economic theory before trying to argue against it. At the very least, you should take a couple minutes to read up on what Comparative Advantage is before you try to argue it doesn't exist. Believe me, there certainly are good argument to be made against Neoclassicalist economic policy, but maybe it would help if you actually knew what they were, instead of blindly asserting things that are demonstrably false.
The economic policy that the United States, (in particular, it's more conservative, pro-business elements) has been trying (quite successfully) to export ever since the end of World War 2 has been one of lowering trade barriers for the express reason that it helps the entire global economy thrive. It is THE reason America became a global economic superpower, and now it's being threatened from within.
Comparative advantage exist but it requires very precise conditions to exert its effect and overall fails in comparison to a diverse export market
being happy with a trade surplus with half the world is pretty low ambitions for the largest economy in the world, why not have a trade surplus or at least near parity with majority of the nations like China does?
If the world expects us the be the leader then they need to support the USA instead of killing it on trade, the stronger the USA is the better it is for the free world
And this is what Trump is trying to do, he wants these other nations to drop tariffs on american goods. But playing nice and asking nicely for the past year has not worked so now its time to America to even the trading odds and get a deal done. America is in an abusive relationship with its allies on trade who expect America to do everything and pay for everything while also enjoying large surpluses with the nation.
Fact is they need the United States we are the number 1 piggy bank of the world and if they want american dollars to buy their goods then they need to lower their barriers
paying a little more for american steel or other raw resources is not going to kill the economy NOT but a long shot, consumer confidence is at record highs and the stock market is up around 40% since Trumps election and GDP is nearing 4% with record low unemployment and wages rising.
we have all the tools we need to win this war and it the end tariffs will be dropped on both sides and all will benefit
Meanwhile, US Department of Commerce has so far received over 20,000 requests for product exemptions from US companies that can't get the goods they need from a domestic metals producer. Bountiful 98 requests had been processed so far. The other companies are simply going to get screwed until the examination process will be completed (some years), and those are only the ones that have no domestic substitues, not the ones that are simply going to pay more for them. "upper hand..."
Meanwhile, US Department of Commerce has so far received over 20,000 requests for product exemptions from US companies that can't get the goods they need from a domestic metals producer. Bountiful 98 requests had been processed so far. The other companies are simply going to get screwed until the examination process will be completed (some years), and those are only the ones that have no domestic substitues, not the ones that are simply going to pay more for them. "upper hand..."
then they will have to pay extra and act nice until this trade war is over(assuming you are even honest with that claim)
fact of the matter is unemployment is at record lows, GDP is soaring and the stock market is nearing record highs again small business and manufacture confidence just reached an all time record
Trump has this won and no amount of whining of armchair admirals will change that
Again you lack any understanding of how the import export market works
Unfortunately it seems that your "understanding" of how the import export market works is purely based on nationalist propaganda myths. To have its finished products more expensive on the international market (via the US imposing tariffs on the raw materials it uses to build them, and being counter-tariffed in exchange) is not going to make the US gain any market share. But is going to make US citizens to pay more for their own consumption, so to be poorer on absolute terms. For how much it can lower its own imports from China, the result will always be a decline of the relative importance of US economy on the world's market. That's not "holding the cards" but "accelerating the decline".
Fadadio said:
haha looks like the have the pot calling the kettle black here
You are the one who lives in a fantasy world where somehow China and Europe drop tariffs and the demands for intellectual property on Chinas part are also dropped
Again, you seem to not understand that THIS IS NOT NEEDED. EU and China already trade pretty well, WITH THE ACTUAL TARIFFS AND THE ACTUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, and, AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS they will trade more between themseles not thanks to new fantastic trade deals, but simply thanks to the fact that US products will be more expensive for both of them AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, and so AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS they will be replaced.
New trade agreements between China and EU can be a FURTHER evolution (and a further backfire for US), but are not needed.
Fadadio said:
(assuming you are even honest with that claim)
So your knowledge of "how the import export market works" doesn't extend to reading Bloomberg or Businessinsider? Well, it's enough to be able to read and do a google search to check.
Unfortunately it seems that your "understanding" of how the import export market works is purely based on nationalist propaganda myths. To have its finished products more expensive on the international market (via the US imposing tariffs on the raw materials it uses to build them, and being counter-tariffed in exchange) is not going to make the US gain any market share. But is going to make US citizens to pay more for their own consumption, so to be poorer on absolute terms. For how much it can lower its own imports from China, the result will always be a decline of the relative importance of US economy on the world's market. That's not "holding the cards" but "accelerating the decline".
and my point that you lack any understanding is proven yet again
The money that would have been sent to china for cheap chinese steel instead goes to american companies who produce steel and thus support american jobs and good paying jobs at that, or at worse instead of buying from china they buy from various other countries that we have agreements with that we are not in a trade war with.
fact of the matter is America is the richest country and Trump is right in calling it the worlds piggy bank.
we have the cards and the other countries know it
so no amount of armchair admiral nonsense will save your argument
Dogwalker1 said: Again, you seem to not understand that THIS IS NOT NEEDED. EU and China already trade pretty well, WITH THE ACTUAL TARIFFS AND THE ACTUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, and, AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS they will trade more between themseles not thanks to new fantastic trade deals, but simply thanks to the fact that US products will be more expensive for both of them AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, and so AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS they will be replaced.
New trade agreements between China and EU can be a FURTHER evolution (and a further backfire for US), but are not needed.
gee if only you knew that the US had a trade deficit and that US consumers buy billions more of chinese products than the EU could ever dream of
You cant just force companies in the EU to make up for the lack of american dollars pouring into china if it is bad for them where they could in fact buy cheaper from other countries depending on the material to be bought.
EU companies dont think out loud "hmmm china is losing billions in US dollars, let buy more than what we need"
This fantasy of yours is laughable and shows your absolute lack of understanding
Dogwalker1 said: So your knowledge of "how the import export market works" doesn't extend to reading Bloomberg or Businessinsider? Well, it's enough to be able to read and do a google search to check.
now if only you had the ability to comprehend that the american stock market is near all time highs that american manufacture and small business confidence is at record highs(funny how they ignore your silly arguments about more expensive materials) and the fact that GDP is soaring and unemployment is nearing record lows as well.
tis just a small google search away ( ;
fact of the matter is we hold the cards and the other countries will blink and trade barriers will be lowered on both sides
My only thought on the matter is that people want reliability. With a mercurial president making decisions with such spontaneity that no one in his own government can even speak for what the current policy is at any given moment, people are not going to get into any agreement that will leave them screwed over if the other side fails to commit. Trump has already left numerous accords and treaties already and often gives demands that are nonsensical to the people receiving them.
Confidence is one thing, remember the dot com bubble? What matters is when its time for there to be results. I won't pretend to understand all the specifics, but my concern is that its easy for the US to start this trade war and get tarrifs up, but much harder to get them to go back down or restore economic trade to their prior level.
Now as a moderator, I ask that everyone remains respectful and not take shots at each other. This is a comment thread for a website dedicated to Aztec Basalt Sculptures, not the parking lot.
My only thought on the matter is that people want reliability. With a mercurial president making decisions with such spontaneity that no one in his own government can even speak for what the current policy is at any given moment, people are not going to get into any agreement that will leave them screwed over if the other side fails to commit. Trump has already left numerous accords and treaties already and often gives demands that are nonsensical to the people receiving them.
Confidence is one thing, remember the dot com bubble? What matters is when its time for there to be results. I won't pretend to understand all the specifics, but my concern is that its easy for the US to start this trade war and get tarrifs up, but much harder to get them to go back down or restore economic trade to their prior level.
actually the message has been fairly consistent AMERICA FIRST
nothing wrong with reworking terrible treaties, its like someone in an abusive relationship asking for a healthy one.
South Korea already blinked and signed a better trade deal with the United States, China offered a better deal but that still was not enough.
everybody has the numbers prior to the steel tariff announcement and eventually both sides will meet and lower barriers to lower than the start of this
The new limit to 50,000 autos a year for each carmaker is largely pointless since none managed to break 11,000, meaning that the previous limit of 25,000 wasn't even an issue.
The deal extends a 25 percent tariff on pickup trucks from South Korea to 2041 from 2021. No Korean companies are exporting pickups to the United States.
The currency manipulation element is unenforceable, meanwhile the TPP portion would have been enforceable through the normal panels and channels. Effectively, its just a good-faith agreement with nothing practical backing it.
South Korea is capped to 70 percent of its current steel export, and will not (as of yet) be hit wit the 25 percent tariff other countries are going to be hit with. There will be a 10 percent tariff on aluminum, however.
I fail to see how this is a better deal than what we were going to get with the TPP, on a larger scale.
The new limit to 50,000 autos a year for each carmaker is largely pointless since none managed to break 11,000, meaning that the previous limit of 25,000 wasn't even an issue.
The deal extends a 25 percent tariff on pickup trucks from South Korea to 2041 from 2021. No Korean companies are exporting pickups to the United States.
The currency manipulation element is unenforceable, meanwhile the TPP portion would have been enforceable through the normal panels and channels. Effectively, its just a good-faith agreement with nothing practical backing it.
South Korea is capped to 70 percent of its current steel export, and will not (as of yet) be hit wit the 25 percent tariff other countries are going to be hit with. There will be a 10 percent tariff on aluminum, however.
I fail to see how this is a better deal than what we were going to get with the TPP, on a larger scale.
TPP would have been a disaster for our workers, not to mention it would have allowed large corporations to sue foreign government for passing legislation that cut into their profits
we dont need NAFTA 2.0
The TPP is dead for now, Trump said maybe he might be open to it if the agreement was more fair, but I like the idea of individual trade deals with countries instead of wholesale agreements that complicate everything
I like the idea of a trade deal that cuts China out, but not at the expense the current version of the TPP has
and my point that you lack any understanding is proven yet again
The money that would have been sent to china for cheap chinese steel instead goes to american companies who produce steel and thus support american jobs and good paying jobs at that, or at worse instead of buying from china they buy from various other countries that we have agreements with that we are not in a trade war with.
And for "cheap European steel and alluminium" that's made with stricter environmental legislation than US's? That's simply a public subsidy paid with US taxpayers' money (since they will pay more the steel and the finished products) to inefficient US manufacturers, that will make them even more inefficient and so less competitive on the international market. Maybe US consumers will be forced to "buy American" (to buy less, since goods are going to be more expensive), but none other will, so US is going to further lose market shares, and so significance, on the international market. That's not "holding the cards" but "accelerating the decline".
Fadadio said:
You cant just force companies in the EU to make up for the lack of american dollars pouring into china if it is bad for them where they could in fact buy cheaper from other countries depending on the material to be bought.
EU companies dont think out loud "hmmm china is losing billions in US dollars, let buy more than what we need"
There is no need for that infact. AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS EU and China will trade more between themselves not thanks to new fantastic trade deals, or because they think they have to aid the other but simply thanks to the fact that US products will be more expensive for both of them AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, and so AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS they will be replaced.
As already said, trade wars are bad for all, but when your goal is (like US's is) not to expand your export, but to reduce your import by making goods more expensive for your citizens, and so your citizens pooorer, at the cost to further reduce your export too, you already lost first to start to fight.
Fadadio said:
now if only you had the ability to comprehend that the american stock market...
The time horizon of the stock market is next month, if not next week, and "confidence" is not "sales". Confidence is always high before starting to fall.
And for "cheap European steel and alluminium" that's made with stricter environmental legislation than US's? That's simply a public subsidy paid with US taxpayers' money (since they will pay more the steel and the finished products) to inefficient US manufacturers, that will make them even more inefficient and so less competitive on the international market. Maybe US consumers will be forced to "buy American" (to buy less, since goods are going to be more expensive), but none other will, so US is going to further lose market shares, and so significance, on the international market. That's not "holding the cards" but "accelerating the decline".
The actual increase in cost will be minimal since its only accounting for the raw steel cost
and again the overall end goal of these tariffs on steel is to get Europe and China to lower barriers so once this is all said and done European or chinese steel will have those tariffs walked back
in the mean time American Steel gets to have a breather and open more plants, which also helps us out in a national security situation in which God forbid we ever to go to war with China they would cuff off steel shipments to the USA and would threaten Europe if not outright sink European ships sending steel to the USA.
with our domestic industry reviving it supports American jobs and gives us a native source of steel in the event of the unthinkable
Dogwalker1 said: There is no need for that infact. AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS EU and China will trade more between themselves not thanks to new fantastic trade deals, or because they think they have to aid the other but simply thanks to the fact that US products will be more expensive for both of them AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS, and so AT THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS they will be replaced.
As already said, trade wars are bad for all, but when your goal is (like US's is) not to expand your export, but to reduce your import by making goods more expensive for your citizens, and so your citizens pooorer, at the cost to further reduce your export too, you already lost first to start to fight.
They already tariff and tax our products at stupid rates to protect domestic industry, hence why we have huge deficits with them. them adding tariffs will be a drop in the bucket since we are already losing on trade, where as they both LOVE american dollars and losing that is not acceptable to either of them. Chinese investors know this all too well with the chinese stock market taking a BEATING
like I have repeated before America has the high ground and China is going to get chopped in two if they think they can tango with us
The time horizon of the stock market is next month, if not next week, and "confidence" is not "sales". Confidence is always high before starting to fall.
Baseless assumptions on your part
fact of the matter is GDP is soaring, wages are rising, confidence just broke all time records(despite talks of a trade war going on for months) unemployment rate is nearing historic lows, and stock market is up.
indicators might go up or down slightly but they have been slamming and beating records and will stay that way no matter how much armchair theorycrafting you do
the results speak for themselves
Facts don't care about your feelings or assumptions
The actual increase in cost will be minimal since its only accounting for the raw steel cost
If the raw steel cost is insignificant, then Trump's tariffs are. The effects on prices will be proportional to the effects on trade.
Fadadio said: and again the overall end goal of these tariffs on steel is to get Europe and China to lower barriers so once this is all said and done European or chinese steel will have those tariffs walked back
EU has no barriers on US steel and aluminium. Infact US barriers had been imposed under the grotesque justification of "national security" concerns. US imports steel and aluminium from EU (produced by well paid workers and with strictier environmental regulations than US's) simply because US steelmakers are not competitive, and to be protected by tariffs is not going to make them any more competitive.
Fadadio said:
They already tariff and tax our products at stupid rates to protect domestic industry, hence why we have huge deficits with them. them adding tariffs will be a drop in the bucket since we are already losing on trade,
As already said, EU is actually the biggest exporter in China. Not only, it's exports are growing at a faster pace than those of US, and at a faster pace than EU's imports from China. And it's not that China does not have barriers on European products. The reaction to be losing on trade should be try to win on trade, not retire from the game and leave the others to play it. US decided to retire from the game.
Fadadio said:
fact of the matter is GDP is soaring, wages are rising,
That accounts for the past, under the old trade rules.
Fadadio said:
Facts don't care about your feelings or assumptions
If the raw steel cost is insignificant, then Trump's tariffs are. The effects on prices will be proportional to the effects on trade.
not at all because china would be losing american money because the investment would shift to american steel or the second cheapest steel on the market, we have many trade partners
Dogwalker1 said: EU has no barriers on US steel and aluminium. Infact US barriers had been imposed under the grotesque justification of "national security" concerns. US imports steel and aluminium from EU (produced by well paid workers and with strictier environmental regulations than US's) simply because US steelmakers are not competitive, and to be protected by tariffs is not going to make them any more competitive.
National security is enough of a reason for the tariffs and that was Trumps original reason for them and used them as leverage for the EU and China dropping tariffs on the USA, for example China taxes american cars coming into china at a rate of 25% where we tax chinese cars at 2.5%. It is this and many other examples which have led to such a gross trade deficit that numbers in the hundreds of billions with China.
Europe also has a 10% tariff on American cars entering Europe where as we only charged them 2.5%(soon be to much more)
Dogwalker1 said: As already said, EU is actually the biggest exporter in China. Not only, it's exports are growing at a faster pace than those of US, and at a faster pace than EU's imports from China. And it's not that China does not have barriers on European products. The reaction to be losing on trade should be try to win on trade, not retire from the game and leave the others to play it. US decided to retire from the game.
Im talking about CHINESE EXPORTS to the USA which is at least 100 billion dollars more than what Europe buys from china, thats the real money making machine right there and its the good ol USA. Its foreign cash pouring into a market and helps its economy the most thats why the USA holds the cards here because of the trade DEFICITS with Europe and China. Europe buying more things from China is only more European money leaving Europe and going into Chinese coffers, in the game of trade you WANT to have other countries buying MORE of your goods than you buy of their goods anyone who even has a remotely decent understanding of trade understands that.
winning on trade you say?
that's exactly what Trump is moving toward
The moment the USA became complacent with having massive trade deficits with Europe and China is the moment we cried uncle and gave up on the game and now Trump is throwing his hand back into the poker game and demanding that we be treated better
Dogwalker1 said: That accounts for the past, under the old trade rules.
Nor yours.
such delicious irony here
yeah dude its not like I have posted raw market data and showed how investors are already pricing in China as the loser of the trade war with the USA but yeah keep deluding yourself
not at all because china would be losing american money because the investment would shift to american steel or the second cheapest steel on the market, we have many trade partners
If the steel is going to cost $1.00 more for ton, that's a $1.00 tax paid by US consumers, if the steel is going to cost $2.00 more, that's a $2.00 tax paid by US consumers. If the effect on prices will not be significant, because US will shift to the second cheaper producer, then the effects on US trade unbalance will be negligible too. "investment" would shift to American Steel only on the basis of US purchasers being forced to buy it at a higher price. This kind of investment is not going to reduce the lack of competitiveness of US producers on the international market.
Fadadio said:
National security is enough of a reason for the tariffs and that was Trumps original reason for them and used them as leverage for the EU and China dropping tariffs on the USA, for example China taxes american cars coming into china at a rate of 25% where we tax chinese cars at 2.5%. It is this and many other examples which have led to such a gross trade deficit that numbers in the hundreds of billions with China.
Europe also has a 10% tariff on American cars entering Europe where as we only charged them 2.5%(soon be to much more)
Europe has a 10% tariff on any third country (not only US) light vehicles imports. US has a 2.5% tariff on third countries car imports, and a 25% tariff on third countries light truck, pick-up and van imports. The tariff every country applies to third countries imports differs for kind of goods, but, according to the World Bank, EU tariff on imports average at 1.6%, that's exactly the same than US. China average at 3.54%, that's higher, but still comparatively low. Any claim that US is losing market shares because it's heavy tariffed by evil strangers is laughable. ESPECIALLY when the average 0.85% tariff Canada applies is taken into account.
Since the tariffs every country apply to the imports from third countries differ for kind of goods (one applies an higher tariff on a certain product, the other on another product),for two countries to not apply the custom external tariff on their respective exports, a comprehensive trade agreement has to be negotiated, in EU-US case it would have been the TTIP, that Trump liked so much. The TTIP would have reduced the tariffs on vehicles to 0%, among many other things. To simply say "now let's reduce the tariffs on the product 'X' to zero or face consequences" is simply flexing muscles to appease domestic audience that want to believe to be strong and capable to dictate terms, but is not going to work. EU already said that it will not negotiate while menaced and, with the position of US into NAFTA being uncertain, to negotiate a free trade agreement with it is even less attractive than before.
Fadadio said:
China subsidizes is steel industry and floods the market with cheap steel in order to kill off its competition, even europe complains and makes reports on Chinese steel dumping.
And yet European export to China is growing more than European import from it.
Fadadio said:
Im talking about CHINESE EXPORTS to the USA which is at least 100 billion dollars more than what Europe buys from china,
Unfortunately export and import are not separate. US tariffs are going to make US products more expensive on the international market,so US will import less, but export less too, and so will lose market shares and be less important on the international trade market. In the game of trade you want to count more, not less, so US current tactics is not "playing", but "retiring", like someone that realised to not being competitive any more and only wants to contain losses.
Fadadio said:
The moment the USA became complacent with having massive trade deficits with Europe and China is the moment we cried uncle and gave up on the game and now Trump is throwing his hand back into the poker game and demanding that we be treated better
It's the moment Trump got up and said "I've had enough to be the sucker, I'm leaving. Good night". Others simply learned to play better.
Fadadio said:
yeah dude its not like I have posted raw market data and showed how investors are already pricing in China as the loser of the trade war with the USA but yeah keep deluding yourself
Actually you posted assumptions based on volatile stock exchange prices like they should "demonstrate" something about the future.
TPP would have been a disaster for our workers, not to mention it would have allowed large corporations to sue foreign government for passing legislation that cut into their profits
That would be impossible.
For one, the ISDS would not over-ride local laws even if they violated the trade agreement.
Secondly, it required specific treaty violations in order for a claim to be made, lost profits was explicitly denied as a potential reason.
ISDS has other problems, namely with it being a potential tool to force countries looking to regulate into expensive proceedings and likely compensation, thus discouraging regulation. However, consider the next point.
Only 8 percent of cases, among all ISDS, were submitted by large corporations, and its been a requirement that the losing party be required to pay all the costs and fees. This discourages frivolous lawsuits, especially when you consider that States have won most of the cases brought to ISDS.
This is an increasingly complex economic system that we live in, with domestic courts not being enough to rule for international disputes in all cases.
As for workers, the greatest benefit would be seen with signatories with poor working standards as the TPP would require, in theory, more worker rights to be granted to receive benefits as part of the agreement. TPP used a stick and carrot model which is more effective in getting compliance with trade deals. I fail to see how prohibiting child labour, requiring minimum wages, and protecting the rights of unions harms to the USA. The fact is most of these provisions weren't even related or directed at the US to begin with.
Its a moot point, the TPP would have been a catalyst for Japan's economy, and would have reduced China's stranglehold on regional economics. Now there's nothing and the one single-party deal Trump has negotiated, as I mentioned in the previous post, was rather superfluous.
If the steel is going to cost $1.00 more for ton, that's a $1.00 tax paid by US consumers, if the steel is going to cost $2.00 more, that's a $2.00 tax paid by US consumers. If the effect on prices will not be significant, because US will shift to the second cheaper producer, then the effects on US trade unbalance will be negligible too. "investment" would shift to American Steel only on the basis of US purchasers being forced to buy it at a higher price. This kind of investment is not going to reduce the lack of competitiveness of US producers on the international market.
undeniably false
shifting investment from US steel from chinese steel would eat away at billions of dollars from chinese coffers and instead send them into the hands of US steel producers.
The overall product is marginally more expensive but we are talking about BILLIONS of dollars lost on trade from chinese steel and the market has shown this with the Chinese stock market taking a beating. The market has shown its vote that China has the most to lose from a trade war and if they want that American money then they gotta give us a better deal
Dogwalker1 said: Europe has a 10% tariff on any third country (not only US) light vehicles imports. US has a 2.5% tariff on third countries car imports, and a 25% tariff on third countries light truck, pick-up and van imports. The tariff every country applies to third countries imports differs for kind of goods, but, according to the World Bank, EU tariff on imports average at 1.6%, that's exactly the same than US. China average at 3.54%, that's higher, but still comparatively low. Any claim that US is losing market shares because it's heavy tariffed by evil strangers is laughable. ESPECIALLY when the average 0.85% tariff Canada applies is taken into account.
Since the tariffs every country apply to the imports from third countries differ for kind of goods (one applies an higher tariff on a certain product, the other on another product),for two countries to not apply the custom external tariff on their respective exports, a comprehensive trade agreement has to be negotiated, in EU-US case it would have been the TTIP, that Trump liked so much. The TTIP would have reduced the tariffs on vehicles to 0%, among many other things. To simply say "now let's reduce the tariffs on the product 'X' to zero or face consequences" is simply flexing muscles to appease domestic audience that want to believe to be strong and capable to dictate terms, but is not going to work. EU already said that it will not negotiate while menaced and, with the position of US into NAFTA being uncertain, to negotiate a free trade agreement with it is even less attractive than before.
adding up overall tariffs is silly on your part when these tariffs are aimed at specific products
Trump is not putting tariffs on EVERYTHING he is targeting specific areas where the gap is large and unwarranted you adding up averages is irrelevant The EU can talk a tough game all they want but the USA holds the cards and sooner or later they are going to break Trump is completely open to dropping all tariffs on both sides but the EU,China and Canada are playing the protectionist game as well. Like I mentioned the US has the cards here with its massive buying power and sooner or later those countries are going to have to blink if they want to put their hands in the US piggy bank.
Dogwalker1 said:
And yet European export to China is growing more than European import from it.
oh boy everyone did you hear?
Europe is making crawling gains while still maintaining a substantial trade deficit with China
lol making crawling gains is pretty sad, Trump however wants to change things in a much bigger way, so if europe is happy with tiny little gains then by all means they can sit there and pat themselves on the back
Dogwalker1 said: Unfortunately export and import are not separate. US tariffs are going to make US products more expensive on the international market,so US will import less, but export less too, and so will lose market shares and be less important on the international trade market. In the game of trade you want to count more, not less, so US current tactics is not "playing", but "retiring", like someone that realised to not being competitive any more and only wants to contain losses.
The import export trade off will be minimal where as the damage done to China and the EU will be many order of magnitudes bigger to put in the words of Bruce Lee
“Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life! Do not be concerned with escaping safely- lay your life before him!!”
every time China or the EU slap tariffs in return the USA strikes back twice as hard
Dogwalker1 said: It's the moment Trump got up and said "I've had enough to be the sucker, I'm leaving. Good night". Others simply learned to play better.
Playing nice has not helped reduce these massive trade imbalances, Trump is going to ruffle some feathers and the USA will be better off by the end of this fight
Dogwalker1 said: Actually you posted assumptions based on volatile stock exchange prices like they should "demonstrate" something about the future.
I posted the market reacting in real time and choosing China as the loser of any trade war, denying this is sad on your part, if this trade war gets more intense its going to bite china in the butt twice as hard if not more than any scratches it does to the USA.
If China is foolish enough to return tariffs then the crash they experienced a few days ago is nothing but a small glimpse of the pain they will experience
In this game of Chicken Europe and China have more to lose as long as Trump stays the course then better deals will be made
For one, the ISDS would not over-ride local laws even if they violated the trade agreement.
Secondly, it required specific treaty violations in order for a claim to be made, lost profits was explicitly denied as a potential reason.
ISDS has other problems, namely with it being a potential tool to force countries looking to regulate into expensive proceedings and likely compensation, thus discouraging regulation. However, consider the next point.
Only 8 percent of cases, among all ISDS, were submitted by large corporations, and its been a requirement that the losing party be required to pay all the costs and fees. This discourages frivolous lawsuits, especially when you consider that States have won most of the cases brought to ISDS.
This is an increasingly complex economic system that we live in, with domestic courts not being enough to rule for international disputes in all cases.
As for workers, the greatest benefit would be seen with signatories with poor working standards as the TPP would require, in theory, more worker rights to be granted to receive benefits as part of the agreement. TPP used a stick and carrot model which is more effective in getting compliance with trade deals. I fail to see how prohibiting child labour, requiring minimum wages, and protecting the rights of unions harms to the USA. The fact is most of these provisions weren't even related or directed at the US to begin with.
Its a moot point, the TPP would have been a catalyst for Japan's economy, and would have reduced China's stranglehold on regional economics. Now there's nothing and the one single-party deal Trump has negotiated, as I mentioned in the previous post, was rather superfluous.
Asking the united states worker to compete with nations that have a massive difference in minimum wage is just asking for more US companies to move operations to different countries and eat into the american wage, this is exactly what happened with NAFTA and we dont need that massive outflow of goodpaying american jobs to countries with such a low standard of living(competing with the minimum wage of the communist state LOL WHAT?)
Probably the first time a Kancolle illustration started a political debate rather than a WW2 trivia debate. Not sure how I feel about this, I tend to stay away from politics (For the reason that is going on this comment section right now).
Edit: Yup, might as well start cooking meself some popcorn 'ere...
If the steel is going to cost $1.00 more for ton, that's a $1.00 tax paid by US consumers, if the steel is going to cost $2.00 more, that's a $2.00 tax paid by US consumers. If the effect on prices will not be significant, because US will shift to the second cheaper producer, then the effects on US trade unbalance will be negligible too. "investment" would shift to American Steel only on the basis of US purchasers being forced to buy it at a higher price. This kind of investment is not going to reduce the lack of competitiveness of US producers on the international market.
Fadadio said: adding up overall tariffs is silly on your part when these tariffs are aimed at specific products
To NOT talk about overall tariffs is silly, but very useful to nationalist propaganda, since US wants to cry foul (when it's already applying very high tariffs on many foreign products) and persuade who is silly enough to believe it, that evil strangers are playing dirty, but superhero Trump will protect the country and defeat them.
The tariff every country applies to third countries imports differs for kind of goods, but, according to the World Bank, EU tariff on imports average at 1.6%, that's exactly the same than US. China average at 3.54%, that's higher, but still comparatively low. Any claim that US is losing market shares because it's heavy tariffed by evil strangers is laughable. ESPECIALLY when the average 0.85% tariff Canada applies is taken into account.
Since the tariffs every country applies to the imports from third countries differ for kind of goods (one applies an higher tariff on a certain product, the other on another product),for two countries to not apply the custom external tariff on their respective exports, a comprehensive trade agreement has to be negotiated, in EU-US case it would have been the TTIP, that Trump liked so much. The TTIP would have reduced the tariffs on vehicles to 0%, among many other things.
Trump is NOT open to dropping all tariffs on both sides, since it requires to discuss the TTIP, that he didn't want to discuss until now and, even in the case Trump will want to reopen the talkings on it, EU is not interested to discuss it while being threatened.
Fadadio said: oh boy everyone did you hear?
Europe is making crawling gains while still maintaining a substantial trade deficit with China
Yeah. Playing under the same rules, EU is making gains, and US is making losses. That's the sad truth. EU wants to keep on making gains, that means reducing (as it's already doing) the trade unbalance with China while keeping on importing and exporting MORE, so expanding its market share. US wants to reduce the trade unbalance by importing and exporting LESS, so reducing its market share. That's retiring from the game.
Fadadio said:
The import export trade off will be minimal...
Sorry, but that's only wishful thinking. Other than part of the abovementioned mithology.
Fadadio said:
Playing nice has not helped...
Read "playing under the same rules of the others".
Fadadio said:
I posted...
Stock exchange prices. I know it, and already told you that the time horizon of the stock market is next month, if not next week. NONE is going to sell titles now because he foresees them falling next year. He can do it overnight.
If the steel is going to cost $1.00 more for ton, that's a $1.00 tax paid by US consumers, if the steel is going to cost $2.00 more, that's a $2.00 tax paid by US consumers. If the effect on prices will not be significant, because US will shift to the second cheaper producer, then the effects on US trade unbalance will be negligible too. "investment" would shift to American Steel only on the basis of US purchasers being forced to buy it at a higher price. This kind of investment is not going to reduce the lack of competitiveness of US producers on the international market.
simple math and economics? that's something you fail to understand despite me slamming it in your face
fact of the matter is that the roaring US economy can easily eat up that increase in cost without so much as a belch, and you get the added bonus of high paying american jobs and national security interest of being able to produce your own steel instead of relying on potential future enemies(China NOT Europe)
and like I already mentioned China already has a massive trade imbalance with the USA numbering in the hundreds of billions and China will take quick notice of all that yummy american green going to places other than China. If however things were the other way around and China had a massive trade deficit with the USA and China started demanding better trade deals or it would add tariffs then the USA would be at a huge disadvantage. Reality however is the opposite and that is why the USA holds the cards.
adding in this expand for the sake of the non affiliated
Show
Dogwalker1 said: To NOT talk about overall tariffs is silly, but very useful to nationalist propaganda, since US wants to cry foul (when it's already applying very high tariffs on many foreign products) and persuade who is silly enough to believe it, that evil strangers are playing dirty, but superhero Trump will protect the country and defeat them.
The tariff every country applies to third countries imports differs for kind of goods, but, according to the World Bank, EU tariff on imports average at 1.6%, that's exactly the same than US. China average at 3.54%, that's higher, but still comparatively low. Any claim that US is losing market shares because it's heavy tariffed by evil strangers is laughable. ESPECIALLY when the average 0.85% tariff Canada applies is taken into account.
Thanks for proving my point on how China tariffs us more than twice as much as us on average and those percentage point differences can make huge differences especially when the target very competitive products that would make up the bulk of what china potentially buys in return, for you to fail to see this just shows how utterly ignorant you are on the topic and yes Trump is the trade hero we united states needed to crush these pathetic deals and forge new ones, maybe sitting there and getting beaten is appealing to you but I want us to be better than that...make that MUCH better than that
Dogwalker1 said: Since the tariffs every country applies to the imports from third countries differ for kind of goods (one applies an higher tariff on a certain product, the other on another product),for two countries to not apply the custom external tariff on their respective exports, a comprehensive trade agreement has to be negotiated, in EU-US case it would have been the TTIP, that Trump liked so much. The TTIP would have reduced the tariffs on vehicles to 0%, among many other things.
Trump is NOT open to dropping all tariffs on both sides, since it requires to discuss the TTIP, that he didn't want to discuss until now and, even in the case Trump will want to reopen the talkings on it, EU is not interested to discuss it while being threatened.
Trump outright said he wanted zero tariffs and even joked about it with Justin, yet nobody took the bait, these other countries are not playing nicely on trade so now the USA has to use force to bring them to the table everyone has their own little domestic industries they want to protect(hey Canada whats up with the 270% to 300% tariff on dairy products?) LOL
Dogwalker1 said: Yeah. Playing under the same rules, EU is making gains, and US is making losses. That's the sad truth. EU wants to keep on making gains, that means reducing (as it's already doing) the trade unbalance with China while keeping on importing and exporting MORE, so expanding its market share. US wants to reduce the trade unbalance by importing and exporting LESS, so reducing its market share. That's retiring from the game.
well if snail speed gains that could easily turn around sound appealing to you then by all means play that losers game(especially with brexit and other countries talking about leaving, the smaller the EU the less negotiating power it has). Trump is looking to slam some rocket boosters on our trade by forcing partners to the table, sometimes it takes an intervention to get things done
Dogwalker1 said: Sorry, but that's only wishful thinking. Other than part of the abovementioned mithology.
Its simple fact when the USA has the buying power where as the other countries are flailing in panic with the loss of american green.
denying this is laughable on your part yet again
Dogwalker1 said: Read "playing under the same rules of the others".
playing under the same rules?
lol are you really calling the steel dumping champion China the player of the rules?
FACEPALM! XD
Dogwalker1 said: Stock exchange prices. I know it, and already told you that the time horizon of the stock market is next month, if not next week. NONE is going to sell titles now because he foresees them falling next year. He can do it overnight.
LOL you really dont understand the market at all
well as someone whose job it is to measure market sentiment ill put it simply
BUY THE RUMOR SELL THE NEWS
when a central bank hints at policy change then the market factors in those changes well before the event even starts clear example would be when the federal reserve first mentioned a time table on interest fate increases the US dollar shot up, you can trace this up with any central bank when they discuss changes in policy and the odds or timeframe that might happen.
Right now investors are factoring in that in a trade war that China will be the loser and has MUCH more to lose. Failing to understand this is absurd on your part