|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
|
Quote:
Thundermuscle75 said:
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Trump is just proposing some tariffs, nothing has been put in stone yet. He is firing warning shots and the final result will be much less. We may impose tariffs on countries in which we have a negative balance of trade or in which they are using dirty tricks to stop our imports. I wish previous presidents had the guts to bring up this conversation. We will be better off after its done
China may not sell us a lot of steel but they sell us boatloads of other stuff. A small tariff of perhaps 5% would do a world of good for usa manufacturers. I suspect something like that will come out of it.
I'm not a Trump fan but I think and hope you might be right.
This could be art of the deal negotiating tactics. His alleged skill as a negotiator was about the only good thing I saw in Trump when he was elected.
The mega tarrifs he has proposed are ridiculous but there are some cases where tarrifs make sense. They could also be a leveraging to for other trade deals.
Do know what's more ridiculous? The US trade deficit, where is your outrage over it?
|
relic
of a bygone era


Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,623
Loc: the right coast
|
|
i had a "trade war" with one of my competition in our local, home market area. i also had a mutual "no compete" gentleman's agreement with another one of my competition in our home market area.
one of those gave me fucking heartburn, made me lose sleep, pissed off a few customers, pissed off at least one manufacturer, and generally sucked. it also cost me money on a regular basis until we finally choked that other company into submission.
the other one made it possible for me to better and more quickly serve my customers and made us more profitable while also providing me with a lot of knowledge that would have been hard to come by otherwise.
it's pretty obvious which is which, right? of course my situations had very, very little in common with international trade wars, but it seems that the bellicose type ends up giving our nation heartburn more often than it enriches us.
Edited by relic (03/05/18 03:36 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: relic]
#25040697 - 03/05/18 03:05 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I hate Trumpy as much as the next guy and I'm not a huge fan of tariffs anyway, but I do believe that if the U.S. is ever going to impose it's will on international trade again, it has to happen soon.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
relic
of a bygone era


Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,623
Loc: the right coast
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: ballsalsa]
#25040771 - 03/05/18 03:34 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
do you think there is any good reason for the US to do so (impose its will on....)? my whole point of that post was that i find better outcomes while teasing bees with honey rather than vinegar. it seems the US does too as long as we don't intentionally tilt the table too far in the direction of a trading partner.
i defer to scientists who study these these things their whole lives and it seems the consensus is that trade wars and tariffs don't provide favorable outcomes for the united states, but again it's not my forte and i probably should do more studying before spouting.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: relic]
#25040778 - 03/05/18 03:39 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I think balls had a good idea earlier. Only impose tariffs on countries that don't have or enforce production and labor laws and who pay shit wages to their workers.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: relic]
#25040779 - 03/05/18 03:39 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
trade wars are just like shooting wars in that people like to talk about them more than they like to fight them out. I don't necessarily think a trade war is a good idea, but i do think that if we were to "win" one, it would have to be within the next 20 years or so
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I think balls had a good idea earlier. Only impose tariffs on countries that don't have or enforce production and labor laws and who pay shit wages to their workers.
I would go further than that. If I had my druthers, any non-compliant country would be barred from doing business in the U.S. at all. Do an end run around the tariff issue.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I think balls had a good idea earlier. Only impose tariffs on countries that don't have or enforce production and labor laws and who pay shit wages to their workers.
I have no issue with that policy because I know they would never comply, so the outcome would end up being tariffs.
Global corporations don't go into third world nations because of the cultural enrichment, they go there for the cheap labor and lack of regulation.
|
musiclover420
psychonaut



Registered: 11/06/12
Posts: 19,563
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: qman] 1
#25040855 - 03/05/18 04:06 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Let us look at the last time we tried this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff
Quote:
The Bush 2002 steel tariff was a political issue in the United States regarding a tariff that President George W. Bush placed on imported steel on March 5, 2002 (took effect March 20). The tariffs were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. Research shows that the tariffs adversely affected US GDP and employment.
Quote:
In September 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) examined the economic effects of the Bush 2002 Steel Tariffs. The economy-wide analysis was designed to focus on the impacts that arose from the relative price changes resulting from the imposition of the tariffs, and estimated that the impact of the tariffs on the U.S. welfare ranged between a gain of $65.6 million (0.0006% of GDP) to a loss of $110.0 million (0.0011% of GDP). A majority of steel-consuming businesses reported that neither continuing nor ending the tariffs would change employment, international competitiveness, or capital investment.[7]
According to a 2005 review of existing research, all studies on the tariffs "find that the costs of the Safeguard Measures outweighed their benefits in terms of aggregate GDP and employment as well as having an important redistributive impact."[1]
Steel production rose slightly during the period of the tariff. [8] The protection of the steel industry in the United States may have had unintended consequences and perverse effects. A study from 2003 that was paid for by CITAC, a trade association of businesses that use raw materials, found that around 200,000 jobs were lost as a result.
From what I've read it's estimated these new tariffs will result in the loss of 100K - 150k jobs related to the steel industry.
-------------------- Don't worry about me, I've got all that I need. And I'm singing my song to the sky You know how it feels, With the breeze of the sun in your eyes. Not minding that time's passing by I've got all and more, My smile, just as before. Is all that I carry with me I talk to myself, I need nobody else. I'm lost and I'm mine, yes I'm free
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
|
Quote:
musiclover420 said: Let us look at the last time we tried this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_steel_tariff
Quote:
The Bush 2002 steel tariff was a political issue in the United States regarding a tariff that President George W. Bush placed on imported steel on March 5, 2002 (took effect March 20). The tariffs were lifted by Bush on December 4, 2003. Research shows that the tariffs adversely affected US GDP and employment.
Quote:
In September 2003, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) examined the economic effects of the Bush 2002 Steel Tariffs. The economy-wide analysis was designed to focus on the impacts that arose from the relative price changes resulting from the imposition of the tariffs, and estimated that the impact of the tariffs on the U.S. welfare ranged between a gain of $65.6 million (0.0006% of GDP) to a loss of $110.0 million (0.0011% of GDP). A majority of steel-consuming businesses reported that neither continuing nor ending the tariffs would change employment, international competitiveness, or capital investment.[7]
According to a 2005 review of existing research, all studies on the tariffs "find that the costs of the Safeguard Measures outweighed their benefits in terms of aggregate GDP and employment as well as having an important redistributive impact."[1]
Steel production rose slightly during the period of the tariff. [8] The protection of the steel industry in the United States may have had unintended consequences and perverse effects. A study from 2003 that was paid for by CITAC, a trade association of businesses that use raw materials, found that around 200,000 jobs were lost as a result.
From what I've read it's estimated these new tariffs will result in the loss of 100K - 150k jobs related to the steel industry.
You know that they know all of that right? Do you really think the government would lack the foresight to check what happened in 2002, but some random guy on the internet does? In fact they know more than we do. They have privè knowledge, we coulnt even dream of
|
Asclepius
Human Being



Registered: 01/09/18
Posts: 2,209
|
|
In response to the OP's original question, I think placing tariffs on steel and aluminum is a disastrous policy decision. It will place an undue financial burden on many American companies which will kill more jobs than are created through new metal manufactories. Trump's going to move forward with his decision for votes, and there are people stupid enough to think that this policy decision is a jobs creator.
-------------------- A society governed in terms of double standards is self-destructive
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,555
Loc: Utah
|
|
Good. We should have more.
I think that they'll have a negative impact on our economy, but that's not why I support them.
I support them because I think it'll be incredibly good for the US strategically. It'll slow the growth of our rivals while fueling our growth, potentially shifting the balance of power more in our favor. It puts our rivals at a disadvantage while putting us at an advantage.
So fuck yeah, tariff the shit out of stuff.
|
Thundermuscle75
Penis, usually hard


Registered: 11/27/17
Posts: 1,726
Loc: Staring at woodchips.
Last seen: 3 years, 23 days
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: qman]
#25041177 - 03/05/18 05:46 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Thundermuscle75 said:
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Trump is just proposing some tariffs, nothing has been put in stone yet. He is firing warning shots and the final result will be much less. We may impose tariffs on countries in which we have a negative balance of trade or in which they are using dirty tricks to stop our imports. I wish previous presidents had the guts to bring up this conversation. We will be better off after its done
China may not sell us a lot of steel but they sell us boatloads of other stuff. A small tariff of perhaps 5% would do a world of good for usa manufacturers. I suspect something like that will come out of it.
I'm not a Trump fan but I think and hope you might be right.
This could be art of the deal negotiating tactics. His alleged skill as a negotiator was about the only good thing I saw in Trump when he was elected.
The mega tarrifs he has proposed are ridiculous but there are some cases where tarrifs make sense. They could also be a leveraging to for other trade deals.
Do know what's more ridiculous? The US trade deficit, where is your outrage over it?
You can be outraged for me.
I guess you see the deficit as a catastrophe.
I see it as an imbalance that could use some correction.
I'm typing this on a phone made in China, designed in the United States, made of globally sourced materials, delivered through a foreign and domestic logistics system. It operates over the worldwide web and does things that twenty years ago I wouldn't have imagined would ever be anything beyond science fiction.
I'm not angry that someone in China is getting some of my money so that they can approach first world living standards.
I think tarrifs should be used in cases where there is dumping or other unfair practices going on.
I think if the goal is to have world where every country is saying 'Fuck You' to every other country we'll just be in a world where everyone is fucked.
|
musiclover420
psychonaut



Registered: 11/06/12
Posts: 19,563
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: nooneman] 2
#25041185 - 03/05/18 05:48 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You know that they know all of that right? Do you really think the government would lack the foresight to check what happened in 2002, but some random guy on the internet does? In fact they know more than we do. They have privè knowledge, we coulnt even dream of
Yes parts of the government absolutely lack foresight, history has proven this time and time again They know obviously, they either don't care or are hoping for similar results.
If hundreds of thousands of people lose jobs it doesn't impact these rich assholes. If anything they are counting on it, then when the recession hits they will take advantage of it.
History has proven they will put profits over the environment or our countries best interests if it suits them.
Quote:
I support them because I think it'll be incredibly good for the US strategically. It'll slow the growth of our rivals while fueling our growth, potentially shifting the balance of power more in our favor. It puts our rivals at a disadvantage while putting us at an advantage.
Care to explain how exactly? Because it sounds like literally the opposite to me. Granted I am not expert, but I doubt anyone here is
-------------------- Don't worry about me, I've got all that I need. And I'm singing my song to the sky You know how it feels, With the breeze of the sun in your eyes. Not minding that time's passing by I've got all and more, My smile, just as before. Is all that I carry with me I talk to myself, I need nobody else. I'm lost and I'm mine, yes I'm free
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
|
Quote:
musiclover420 said:
Quote:
You know that they know all of that right? Do you really think the government would lack the foresight to check what happened in 2002, but some random guy on the internet does? In fact they know more than we do. They have privè knowledge, we coulnt even dream of
Yes parts of the government absolutely lack foresight, history has proven this time and time again They know obviously, they either don't care or are hoping for similar results.
If hundreds of thousands of people lose jobs it doesn't impact these rich assholes. If anything they are counting on it, then when the recession hits they will take advantage of it.
History has proven they will put profits over the environment or our countries best interests if it suits them.
Quote:
I support them because I think it'll be incredibly good for the US strategically. It'll slow the growth of our rivals while fueling our growth, potentially shifting the balance of power more in our favor. It puts our rivals at a disadvantage while putting us at an advantage.
Care to explain how exactly? Because it sounds like literally the opposite to me. Granted I am not expert, but I doubt anyone here is 
Im sure when trump holds his meetings, people in the those meetings, bring up the same points you brought up. And im sure they have valid counterpoints as to why it will work or what the benefits this time around would be
|
musiclover420
psychonaut



Registered: 11/06/12
Posts: 19,563
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
MagicMush123 said: Im sure when trump holds his meetings, people in the those meetings, bring up the same points you brought up. And im sure they have valid counterpoints as to why it will work or what the benefits this time around would be
Yes, at least a few people warned Trump the tariffs are a bad idea, he ignored them...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ryan-splits-with-trump-as-gop-lawmakers-move-to-block-planned-tariffs/2018/03/05/cbb5c786-2094-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.9b2faad72a83
Quote:
Republican congressional leaders stepped up their efforts Monday to stop President Trump from implementing global tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, warning that the protectionist move would damage the economy and muddle the party’s message in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.
For much of the day, an extraordinary public debate over core economic principles played out between the president and leading members of his own party.
“We are extremely worried about the consequences of a trade war and are urging the White House to not advance with this plan,” said AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).
Quote:
The Republican lawmakers went public after several days of Trump airing his protectionist views. In an early morning tweetstorm and subsequent Oval Office remarks Monday, the president doubled down on his trade offensive, telling reporters: “No, we’re not backing down.”
At the White House, senior aides like Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, sought to convince the president to reconsider even as colleagues labored over the legal work needed to implement the import taxes, senior administration officials said.
Then there's shady stuff like this:
Ex-Trump adviser sold $31m in shares days before president announced steel tariffs
-------------------- Don't worry about me, I've got all that I need. And I'm singing my song to the sky You know how it feels, With the breeze of the sun in your eyes. Not minding that time's passing by I've got all and more, My smile, just as before. Is all that I carry with me I talk to myself, I need nobody else. I'm lost and I'm mine, yes I'm free
|
MagicMush123
moon person



Registered: 01/22/15
Posts: 5,101
Loc: Chinada
|
|
I dont know why they do anything they do, i was just pointing out that they already know all the pros and cons that we know. Guys on the internet aren't finding any new information that they dont already know about. The media is biased towards trump. Maybe there are some pros being omitted from the media's version of the story, i have no idea
|
mycosis


Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 19,727
Loc: USSA
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: ballsalsa]
#25041371 - 03/05/18 07:16 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: I think balls had a good idea earlier. Only impose tariffs on countries that don't have or enforce production and labor laws and who pay shit wages to their workers.
I would go further than that. If I had my druthers, any non-compliant country would be barred from doing business in the U.S. at all. Do an end run around the tariff issue.
The WTO stands against everything you hope for.
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
Re: Trump's Tarrifs [Re: relic] 1
#25041374 - 03/05/18 07:17 PM (5 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
relic said: i had a "trade war" with one of my competition in our local, home market area. i also had a mutual "no compete" gentleman's agreement with another one of my competition in our home market area.
one of those gave me fucking heartburn, made me lose sleep, pissed off a few customers, pissed off at least one manufacturer, and generally sucked. it also cost me money on a regular basis until we finally choked that other company into submission.
the other one made it possible for me to better and more quickly serve my customers and made us more profitable while also providing me with a lot of knowledge that would have been hard to come by otherwise.
it's pretty obvious which is which, right? of course my situations had very, very little in common with international trade wars, but it seems that the bellicose type ends up giving our nation heartburn more often than it enriches us.
In fact i think it quite closely mirrors the world market as a whole.
Those willing to collude and price fix will survive whilst convincing themselves that their very survival is better for consumers and after a narrowing laud the value in a competetive free market.
I hope you dont take offense to this...its the way of the world.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
musiclover420
psychonaut



Registered: 11/06/12
Posts: 19,563
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
MagicMush123 said: I dont know why they do anything they do, i was just pointing out that they already know all the pros and cons that we know. Guys on the internet aren't finding any new information that they dont already know about
Except that many care about the pro's for themselves and their business investors over the cons for the entire middle/lower classes.
Some of these people are also really stupid and short sited it seems, here's a funny recent example:
Manafort Left an Incriminating Paper Trail Because He Couldn’t Figure Out How to Convert PDFs to Word Files
Quote:
on or about October 21, 2016, Manafort emailed Gates a .pdf version of the real 2016 DMI P&L, which showed a loss of more than $600,000. Gates converted that .pdf into a “Word” document so that it could be edited, which Gates sent back to Manafort. Manafort altered that “Word” document by adding more than $3.5 million in income. He then sent this falsified P&L to Gates and asked that the “Word” document be converted back to a .pdf, which Gates did and returned to Manafort. Manafort then sent the falsified 2016 DMI P&L .pdf to Lender D.
Really shows how dumb some of these guys are. They think they can get away with anything so they don't even bother trying to be smart about their crimes.
Quote:
The media is biased towards trump. Maybe there are some pros being omitted from the media's version of the story, i have no idea
Some of the media is, just like some is biased in favor of Trump and willing to lie to make him look better. Even many conservatives are saying this is a bad idea though.
There's actually a lot of news outlets that have been too easy on Trump IMO just for the sake of appearing neutral.
-------------------- Don't worry about me, I've got all that I need. And I'm singing my song to the sky You know how it feels, With the breeze of the sun in your eyes. Not minding that time's passing by I've got all and more, My smile, just as before. Is all that I carry with me I talk to myself, I need nobody else. I'm lost and I'm mine, yes I'm free
|
|