Trade Wars Begin: Commerce Dept Recommends 23.5% Tariff On All Imports From China, Russia +

[goldenequity]

Global Trade Wars Begin: Commerce Recommends Major Tariffs On Steel, Aluminum Focusing On China, Russia
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/wilbur-ross-hold-briefing-steel-aluminum-reports


Specifically, focusing on Aluminum, Wilbur Ross's department will:

Recommend 7.7% tariffs on all aluminum imports from all countries.
Recommend about a 23.5% tariffs on aluminum imports from China, Russia, Venezuela and Vietnam
Recommend quota on imports from all countries up to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the U.S.

As for Steel, the commerce department will:

Recommend a global tariff of 24% on all imports
Recommend a tariff of at least 53% from Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam
Recommend a quota of 63% of 2017 exports for the countries listed above.

A former senior government trade official quoted by Axios, said that without major exemptions, these recommendations would represent: "[T]he opening shot in a trade war... a declaration of war against the world on aluminum and steel... These are some of our closest treaty allies... These are some serious numbers."

And another quote from a trade expert: "This would be beyond a trade war. You're talking about blowing up the WTO."

[axiomata]

1930 Smoot Hawley here we come!

[Zippyjuan]

Aluminum isn't "all imports". Misleading headline.


Trade Wars Begin: Commerce Dept Recommends 23.5% Tariff On All Imports From China, Russia +

[goldenequity]

Aluminum isn't "all imports". Misleading headline.

my bad :(

[Anti Federalist]

I would have made it 30

[Swordsmyth]

1930 Smoot Hawley here we come!

I don't know whether this is good or not but we had a trade surplus in 1930, we have a giant deficit now so it is totally different.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't know whether this is good or not but we had a trade surplus in 1930, we have a giant deficit now so it is totally different.

Is a trade deficit a good thing or a bad thing? Is a country better off having a surplus? Depends on the reason for the surplus. If you are a wealthy country and your trading partners are relatively poor, you can run a deficit because you can afford to import more things than they can. If you have more resources than they do, they may have to import those resources from you. If you lack resources, you may have to import more. If you can get thing cheaper from someplace else than you can produce them at home, is it a good thing to import them- lowering costs for people in your country? Or should you protect the local producers and their jobs by limiting imports and raising costs for people in your country?

[Swordsmyth]

Is a trade deficit a good thing or a bad thing? Is a country better off having a surplus? Depends on the reason for the surplus. If you are a wealthy country and your trading partners are relatively poor, you can run a deficit because you can afford to import more things than they can. If you have more resources than they do, they may have to import those resources from you. If you lack resources, you may have to import more. If you can get thing cheaper from someplace else than you can produce them at home, is it a good thing to import them- lowering costs for people in your country? Or should you protect the local producers and their jobs by limiting imports and raising costs for people in your country?

I'm generally a low tariff guy but if other countries start a trade war we have to defend ourselves.

In any case my point is that nations with a deficit have little to lose in a trade war and and nations with a surplus have a lot to lose.

[Zippyjuan]

I'm generally a low tariff guy but if other countries start a trade war we have to defend ourselves.

In any case my point is that nations with a deficit have little to lose in a trade war and and nations with a surplus have a lot to lose.

They can lose jobs. If a tariff war starts. We raise tariff, then they do. Our imports become more expensive and we sell fewer exports. Higher prices, fewer jobs (exports are about 12.5% of our total GDP).


but if other countries start a trade war we have to defend ourselves.

In this case, it is the US starting to raise tariffs.

[Swordsmyth]

They can lose jobs. If a tariff war starts. We raise tariff, then they do. Our imports become more expensive and we sell fewer exports. Higher prices, fewer jobs (exports are about 12.5% of our total GDP).

Did I say "nothing to lose"?

The export jobs we might lose in the trade war that everybody else started are outnumbered by the jobs that might come back to replace the imports that get reduced.

Trade wars are no fun, I wish the other countries hadn't started one, if we finally fight back they might think twice in the future.

[Zippyjuan]

Did I say "nothing to lose"?


The export jobs we might lose in the trade war that everybody else started are outnumbered by the jobs that might come back to replace the imports that get reduced.

Trade wars are no fun, I wish the other countries hadn't started one, if we finally fight back they might think twice in the future.

You did say "little to lose". I guess jobs and higher prices are "little".

The net result is fewer jobs. Higher prices means people have less money available to spend on other items. Lower sales- fewer workers needed. The people selling the imported items (or using them to produce other goods and services) have fewer customers and cut labor (jobs). And it takes time to move production to the US from another country- they won't move right away. They will move after (and if) they see enough cost increases to warrant the move. Then they need to build new factories (more costs) and hire workers. Trade wars hurt both sides involved.

[Swordsmyth]

The net result is fewer jobs. Higher prices means people have less money available to spend on other items. Lower sales- fewer workers needed. The people selling the imported items (or using them to produce other goods and services) have fewer customers and cut labor (jobs). And it takes time to move production to the US from another country- they won't move right away. They will move after (and if) they see enough cost increases to warrant the move. Then they need to build new factories (more costs) and hire workers. Trade wars hurt both sides involved.

So it is exactly like I said:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Swordsmyth http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6589655#post6589655)

Did I say "nothing to lose"?

The export jobs we might lose in the trade war that everybody else started are outnumbered by the jobs that might come back to replace the imports that get reduced.

Trade wars are no fun, I wish the other countries hadn't started one, if we finally fight back they might think twice in the future.

[axiomata]

I'm generally a low tariff guy but if other countries start a trade war we have to defend ourselves.

In any case my point is that nations with a deficit have little to lose in a trade war and and nations with a surplus have a lot to lose.

So if one country starts a war where they shoot their own citizens we have to defend ourselves by shooting our own citizens?

[Swordsmyth]

So if one country starts a war where they shoot their own citizens we have to defend ourselves by shooting our own citizens?

When one side starts a war people on both sides die.

[Zippyjuan]

US is starting this one.

[Swordsmyth]

US is starting this one.
Nope, it's been on going for decades, everybody else started it and we either collaborated or ignored it while our economy was gutted, it's long since time to fight back.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-steel-tariffs-20170628-story.html

Tariffs always have unforseen consequences beyond their targets. The big problem with steel prices has been huge global production (a lot coming from China) leading to a surplus supply and driving down global prices. Tariffs will not address that problem. It will make things more expensive for companies using steel and aluminum though. Imports from China only account for about three percent of US steel imports so again, it won't have any significant impact on that. It could make US steel more expensive compared to say China and cost the US business steel export sales to other countries.


Trump's plan to slap tariffs on steel imports carries big economic and political risks


President Trump was standing on the banks of the Ohio River, and as barges loaded with West Virginia coal floated by, he noted that half the United States' steel is produced within 250 miles and told the crowd that soon "the steel folks are going to be very happy."

Within that same distance lies the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, which the president also has promised to protect. But carmakers are dreading what Trump apparently was alluding to: plans to impose significant punitive tariffs or quotas on steel imports.

Trump has promised to crack down on unfair foreign traders and restore the fortunes of American manufacturing. Few industries are as important as steelmaking, and Trump sees steel as an emblem of industrial power as well as being vital to the country's national security.

But the president faces a conundrum: Making good on his Cincinnati pledge earlier this month may help domestic mills by restricting foreign steel and boosting U.S. steel prices. But that same action almost certainly will mean higher costs for American makers of cars, appliances, machinery and construction materials, and for many other manufacturers that cut, bend and otherwise fabricate steel. That could lead to higher prices for consumers and job losses.

"I'm sympathetic to American steel mills, but if they protect domestic steel, they're going to be hurting steel fabricators, which employ a hundred times more people," said Drew Greenblatt, chief executive of Baltimore-based Marlin Steel Wire Products, which buys only U.S.-made steel. Greenblatt has been paying more for the metal since Trump's election, as prices have risen partly in anticipation of coming measures.

Others, such as Fontana-based California Steel Industries and the Port of Los Angeles, have voiced opposition to blanket restrictions on steel imports, saying the kinds of slab steel that are important for their businesses and employment are not readily available from domestic producers. Nor do analysts think tariffs will address the key problem — excess steel output in China that has caused a global glut and downward pressure on prices.



Today American farmers, among others, worry that any new steel tariffs will spill over to them. U.S. Wheat Associates, in written comments to the Commerce Department, said it was "extremely concerned" and urged the Trump administration to "consider the fallout if other countries follow suit and impose restrictions on U.S. wheat or other products as a result of their own national security concerns, whether real or imagined."

U.S. wheat growers, like producers of corn, soybeans and other farm goods, are heavily dependent on exports and are considered particularly vulnerable in a trade war. Disruption of critical food supplies would have ripple effects globally, Wheat Associates said, suggesting that in protecting steel, the Trump administration could threaten the flow of food shipments that may be as integral to national security as steel production.


The U.S. already has in place some tariffs on various steel from China and some other countries, for selling products below cost or with the unfair benefit of government subsidies. As a result, steel from China accounted for just 3% of total U.S. steel imports last year, although that does not tell the whole story. Steel shipments to the U.S. from Turkey, for example, have doubled since 2013, and the American steel industry says Turkey has been buying cheap Chinese steel billets, turning them into products and then loading them onto boats to America.




"We're doing this at the same time we're trying to get Korea to make operational the U.S. anti-missile system," he said. "We're going to push them on steel at the same time we're trying to get Japan to negotiate a free-trade agreement, and EU the same thing." There will be consequences, he said.

Greenblatt, the CEO of Marlin Steel Wire, said it's hard enough already competing with European rivals. If Trump imposes tariffs, he reckons he will be paying even more for American steel, while Germany and others may continue to buy China-made steel at a cheaper price, making it even tougher to win business in the global market.

"My heart bleeds for the steel mill guys," he said. "But the steel fabricators are going to get their heads handed to them if everybody else buys from China."

[axiomata]

When one side starts a war people on both sides die.

If governments fought real wars like they fight trade wars, here’s how the transcript of the communiqués between the leaders of two warring nations would read:

Leader of Absurditopia (A): I say, leader of Stupidia – we demand that you stop occupying that contested strip of land. If you refuse, we’ll have no choice but to shoot our own citizens.

Leader of Stupidia (S): You don’t scare us! That land is ours. And if you do kill some of your own people, make no mistake that we will immediately – and just as cruelly – commence to killing our own people. Courage is our national motto!

(A): Ha! You’re bluffing. But I’m not. I’ve just courageously ordered my troops to mow down in cold blood ten percent of my fellow countrymen. Take that!

(S): How dare you attack you like that! You leave us no choice but to attack us. I am ordering the Stupidian army to slaughter 15 percent of innocent Stupidians here in Stupidia. How do you like them apples?!

(A): You are cruel and inhuman to damage us by killing your people. I hereby instruct all of my fellow Absurditopians to commit suicide! Only then will you nasty Stupidians get your proper comeuppance and we Absurditopians the justice that we are due!

(S): You can’t beat us, you Absurditopian you! Listen up. I’m ordering all of my fellow citizens – Stupidians all! – to commit suicide. We’ll see who emerges victorious!
….
Then a long, long silence.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/if-trade-wars-were-like-real-wars.html

[Swordsmyth]

If governments fought real wars like they fight trade wars, here’s how the transcript of the communiqués between the leaders of two warring nations would read:

Leader of Absurditopia (A): I say, leader of Stupidia – we demand that you stop occupying that contested strip of land. If you refuse, we’ll have no choice but to shoot our own citizens.

Leader of Stupidia (S): You don’t scare us! That land is ours. And if you do kill some of your own people, make no mistake that we will immediately – and just as cruelly – commence to killing our own people. Courage is our national motto!

(A): Ha! You’re bluffing. But I’m not. I’ve just courageously ordered my troops to mow down in cold blood ten percent of my fellow countrymen. Take that!

(S): How dare you attack you like that! You leave us no choice but to attack us. I am ordering the Stupidian army to slaughter 15 percent of innocent Stupidians here in Stupidia. How do you like them apples?!

(A): You are cruel and inhuman to damage us by killing your people. I hereby instruct all of my fellow Absurditopians to commit suicide! Only then will you nasty Stupidians get your proper comeuppance and we Absurditopians the justice that we are due!

(S): You can’t beat us, you Absurditopian you! Listen up. I’m ordering all of my fellow citizens – Stupidians all! – to commit suicide. We’ll see who emerges victorious!
….
Then a long, long silence.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/if-trade-wars-were-like-real-wars.html

Sorry to be the one to break it to you but politicians are not that stupid, just as with shooting wars there is a tangible benefit that may be obtained by the side that initiates the war and there is damage done to the target that can be reduced if the target fights back.

Just like with real wars most are futile and only result in damage to both sides but history records examples where the aggressor benefited and everybody thinks they will be one of those exceptions, also just like with other kinds of war the target must defend themselves in order to limit the damage or they will be destroyed/conquered and exploited.

[Jan2017]

Hmmmm . . . Bush 41, Bush 43, Clinton 42, Clinton 45

https://s26.postimg.org/4olebq609/uraniumoneplea.jpg (https://postimages.org/)


#20 – Barbara Wise – Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, naked body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

COLD CASE: Cause of death: Unknown.

[axiomata]

Sorry to be the one to break it to you but politicians are not that stupid, just as with shooting wars there is a tangible benefit that may be obtained by the side that initiates the war and there is damage done to the target that can be reduced if the target fights back.

Just like with real wars most are futile and only result in damage to both sides but history records examples where the aggressor benefited and everybody thinks they will be one of those exceptions, also just like with other kinds of war the target must defend themselves in order to limit the damage or they will be destroyed/conquered and exploited.

Politicians are self interested and recognize the political benefits of small but concentrated benefits to protected industries at the expense of larger but distributed costs to the general public.

The politician can get donations from the steel industry for enacting protective tarriffs but can't get donations for pointing out the truth that if a foreign country taxes it's citizens to dump cheap steel in the US, then those foreign citizens are essentially paying for US infrastructure and products made of the raw steel material.

[CaptUSA]

I don't know whether this is good or not but we had a trade surplus in 1930, we have a giant deficit now so it is totally different.

Do you even econ, bro?

There is not such thing as a trade deficit. When you trade, both side win. They may get a surplus of dollars, but we get a surplus of goods.

Ron Paul has often said that we should just drop ALL of our barriers to trade, regardless of what other countries may or may not do. Tariffs are like cutting yourself to make your neighbor bleed.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you even econ, bro?

There is not such thing as a trade deficit. When you trade, both side win. They may get a surplus of dollars, but we get a surplus of goods.

Ron Paul has often said that we should just drop ALL of our barriers to trade, regardless of what other countries may or may not do. Tariffs are like cutting yourself to make your neighbor bleed.

So I can take that approach to my own finances then?
It doesn't matter if I empty my bank account and go into debt just as long as I get goods in return for my money?

[Zippyjuan]

So I can take that approach to my own finances then?
It doesn't matter if I empty my bank account and go into debt just as long as I get goods in return for my money?

The trade deficit is paid with actual goods and money traded- not debt. A budget deficit means you don't have money to spend on everything. With a trade deficit, you do have the money (usually- you could in theory borrow). What you do with your own money is your own business.

[Swordsmyth]

The trade deficit is paid with actual goods and money traded- not debt. A budget deficit means you don't have money to spend on everything. With a trade deficit, you do have the money (usually- you could in theory borrow). What you do with your own money is your own business.

The point is that when you don't have a job (industries) you will run out of money and go into debt and you can't just recreate your job (industries) overnight, it doesn't end well.

[CaptUSA]

So I can take that approach to my own finances then?
It doesn't matter if I empty my bank account and go into debt just as long as I get goods in return for my money?

So, I think remedial economics is in order for you. You're crossing your wires trying to make this analogy. But in theory, if what you are getting is more valuable to you than your money, then yes! Because you'd have goods to sell for more money later. You only trade to INCREASE your wealth - not to decrease it. What you seem to be suggesting is that we are trading more dollars than the value we are getting in return - but that is obviously not true. If it were, the trade wouldn't happen.

[CaptUSA]

The point is that when you don't have a job (industries) you will run out of money and go into debt and you can't just recreate your job (industries) overnight, it doesn't end well.

Dude, just give it up. You're out of your depth here. It would be wise to recognize it.

[CCTelander]

So I can take that approach to my own finances then?
It doesn't matter if I empty my bank account and go into debt just as long as I get goods in return for my money?


So, that would be a "no" then to his question?

[Swordsmyth]

So, I think remedial economics is in order for you. You're crossing your wires trying to make this analogy. But in theory, if what you are getting is more valuable to you than your money, then yes! Because you'd have goods to sell for more money later. You only trade to INCREASE your wealth - not to decrease it. What you seem to be suggesting is that we are trading more dollars than the value we are getting in return - but that is obviously not true. If it were, the trade wouldn't happen.

We trade for many consumables and items with zero or limited resale value.

[Zippyjuan]

So, I think remedial economics is in order for you. You're crossing your wires trying to make this analogy. But in theory, if what you are getting is more valuable to you than your money, then yes! Because you'd have goods to sell for more money later. You only trade to INCREASE your wealth - not to decrease it. What you seem to be suggesting is that we are trading more dollars than the value we are getting in return - but that is obviously not true. If it were, the trade wouldn't happen.

In simple terms, if I have more money than you do, I can buy more stuff from you than you can buy from me. If we agree to trade, I am going to end up with a trade deficit and you will have a trade surplus. Am I worse off because I was able to buy more stuff than if I was limited to what I have on hand? Are you worse off because now you have more money to buy even more things with than if we didn't trade?

[CCTelander]

Dude, just give it up. You're out of your depth here. It would be wise to recognize it.


And take steps to remedy the deficiency.

[Zippyjuan]

We trade for many consumables and items with zero or limited resale value.

US Top Exports based on total dollar value: http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-states-top-10-exports/


Machinery including computers: US$201.7 billion (13% of total exports)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $174.2 billion (11.3%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $138 billion (8.9%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $131.2 billion (8.5%)
Vehicles: $130.1 billion (8.4%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $83.6 billion (5.4%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $61.5 billion (4%)
Gems, precious metals: $60.4 billion (3.9%)
Pharmaceuticals: $45.1 billion (2.9%)
Organic chemicals: $36.2 billion (2.3%)

Among the top 10 export categories year over year, mineral fuels including oil was the fastest-growing U.S. shipment via its 47.3% value gain from 2016 to 2017.

In second place for improving export sales were organic chemicals which rose 6.6%.

America’s exported machinery including computers appreciated by 5.8% year over year.

There were two decliners among America’s top 10 export categories in 2017 compared to 2016: aircraft and spacecraft (down -2.7%) and pharmaceuticals (down -4.1%).

Our top imports: http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-states-top-10-imports/


Electrical machinery, equipment: US$356.8 billion (14.8% of total imports)
Machinery including computers: $349.1 billion (14.5%)
Vehicles : $294.6 billion (12.2%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $204.2 billion (8.5%)
Pharmaceuticals: $96.4 billion (4%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $86.2 billion (3.6%)
Furniture, bedding, lighting, signs, prefab buildings: $67.2 billion (2.8%)
Gems, precious metals: $60 billion (2.5%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $54.9 billion (2.3%)
Organic chemicals: $46.1 billion (1.9%)

America’s imports of mineral fuels including oil had the fastest-growing increase in value among the top 10 import categories, up 25.2% from 2016 to 2017. This gain was propelled by higher purchases of crude and refined petroleum oils as well as petroleum gas.

In second place for expanding import purchases was machinery including computers via a 10.7% uptick.

American imports of plastics delivered the third-fastest improvement up 9%.

Two import product categories declined year over year, namely gems and precious metals (down -8.2%) led by reduced purchases of gold and diamonds and organic chemicals (down -7.4%).

[CaptUSA]

We trade for many consumables and items with zero or limited resale value.

Ugh. It doesn't matter what you trade for. If it's more valuable to you than the FRN's you've given up to get it, you have increased your wealth. That's the point. With trade, you always get more than you give. That's kinda the whole point!

[Zippyjuan]

Trade is two parties freely agreeing that both have something the other wants and they agree on the terms of an exchange.

[Swordsmyth]

Ugh. It doesn't matter what you trade for. If it's more valuable to you than the FRN's you've given up to get it, you have increased your wealth. That's the point. With trade, you always get more than you give. That's kinda the whole point!

So I can quit my job and spend my money on consumables and items with limited resale value and when my bank account is empty and I have garage-saled off all of my assets (for a discount) to buy food I won't be poor?

[Swordsmyth]

Trade is two parties freely agreeing that both have something the other wants and they agree on the terms of an exchange.

And it doesn't mean that both are using wisdom and will stay solvent, or that one is not suckering the other.

[CaptUSA]

Trade is two parties freely agreeing that both have something the other wants and they agree on the terms of an exchange.

Tariffs are a pious government telling them that their terms aren't "fair" and one of them needs to pay more.

[Zippyjuan]

And it doesn't mean that both are using wisdom and will stay solvent, or that one is not suckering the other.

No, there isn't any guarantee that everybody lives happily ever after and becomes billionaires. The important thing is that they were free to make their own decisions. Things like tariffs says that somebody isn't capable of making their own decisions- or at least not the right ones. They need protecting.

[CaptUSA]

So I can quit my job and spend my money on consumables and items with limited resale value and when my bank account is empty and I have garage-saled off all of my assets (for a discount) to buy food I won't be poor?

Still with this ridiculously ignorant analogy?! lol. So, I guess your response would be to centrally-plan what people trade for because you know better than each individual what they should value?

The truth is, in your faulty analogy, the person gained their wealth through trade and then squandered it. The trade wasn't the problem - it's what was done afterwards.

[juleswin]

I don't know whether this is good or not but we had a trade surplus in 1930, we have a giant deficit now so it is totally different.

I think this is the first time I have agree with u on anything. But there is something like a trade deficit and depending on how it is created, it can be bad. Take the situation we have in this country, we have been buying for years with a credit card that has interest that will bury us. I don't care what Ron Paul said but that cannot be a good thing.

Some people have this mindset that just because a voluntary trade is going on, everybody is winning. Well, it depends because there can definitely be winner and losers in a trade. Lots of moving parts involved and declarative statements like "there is nothing like trade deficits" and "there are no winners or loser in a trade " is not helping.

I bet u that most people disagreeing with u would rather prefer having a trade surplus(regardless if that deficit arose via spending savings or credit card spending) than a deficit if they had a business.

[Swordsmyth]

No, there isn't any guarantee that everybody lives happily ever after and becomes billionaires. The important thing is that they were free to make their own decisions. Things like tariffs says that somebody isn't capable of making their own decisions- or at least not the right ones. They need protecting.

The purposes of government are to administer justice domestically and protect the citizens from outside threats (including trade wars), lassez-faire applies to the domestic economy not to the external jungle.

The founders understood and that is why they gave the government the power to enact tariffs, they forbade export tariffs but the didn't even limit import tariffs.

[Swordsmyth]

Still with this ridiculously ignorant analogy?! lol. So, I guess your response would be to centrally-plan what people trade for because you know better than each individual what they should value?

I want government to respond when other countries engage in trade warfare against us, not to micromanage trade.


The truth is, in your faulty analogy, the person gained their wealth through trade and then squandered it. The trade wasn't the problem - it's what was done afterwards.
The person gained wealth through PRODUCTION and squandered it through CONSUMPTION, that's Econ 101.

[Swordsmyth]

I think this is the first time I have agree with u on anything. But there is something like a trade deficit and depending on how it is created, it can be bad. Take the situation we have in this country, we have been buying for years with a credit card that has interest that will bury us. I don't care what Ron Paul said but that cannot be a good thing.

Some people have this mindset that just because a voluntary trade is going on, everybody is winning. Well, it depends because there can definitely be winner and losers in a trade. Lots of moving parts involved and declarative statements like "there is nothing like trade deficits" and "there are no winners or loser in a trade " is not helping.

I bet u that most people disagreeing with u would rather prefer having a trade surplus(regardless if that deficit arose via spending savings or credit card spending) than a deficit if they had a business.

Today is weird, I was forced to agree with zippy in another thread.;)

[axiomata]

The purposes of government are to administer justice domestically and protect the citizens from outside threats (including trade wars), lassez-faire applies to the domestic economy not to the external jungle.

The founders understood and that is why they gave the government the power to enact tariffs, they forbade export tariffs but the didn't even limit import tariffs.

Hamilton was the one who favored protective tarrifs. The others used neutral low tariffs to raise revenue for a small constitutionally sized government.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-trade-history

[Swordsmyth]

The others used neutral low tariffs to raise revenue for a small constitutionally sized government.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-trade-history

Which is my position until somebody else starts a trade war.
You don't have to want protectionist tariffs to keep the option open for defense any more than you have to want conquest to keep a navy or an army or a militia around.

[goldenequity]

S.Korea
(URGENT) Moon tells gov't to consider all measures, including WTO process, against US. trade barriers
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2018/02/19/67/0301000000AEN20180219005900315F.html?sns=tw



btw...
Ivanka! (http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2018/02/20/40/0401000000AEN20180220008000315F.html) ;)

[specsaregood]

https://seekingalpha.com/pr/17094856-united-states-steel-restart-granite-city-works-blast-furnace-steelmaking-facilities



PITTSBURGH, March 07, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- United States Steel Corporation (X) announced today it will restart one of two blast furnaces (“B” blast furnace) and the steelmaking facilities at its Granite City Works, an integrated steelmaking plant in Granite City, Ill. The additional capacity will support anticipated increased demand for steel in the United States from the pending action announced by President Donald J. Trump on March 1, 2018, as a result of the U.S. Department of Commerce Section 232 national security investigation on steel imports.

“Our Granite City Works facility and employees, as well as the surrounding community, have suffered too long from the unending waves of unfairly traded steel products that have flooded U.S. markets,” said U. S. Steel President and Chief Executive Officer David B. Burritt. “The Section 232 action announced by President Trump last week recognizes the significant threat steel imports pose to our national and economic security. The President’s strong leadership is needed to begin to level the playing field so companies like ours can compete, win and create jobs that support our employees and the communities in which we operate as well as strengthen our national and economic security. We will continue to support our customers with the high-quality products they have come to expect from U. S. Steel.”

The company anticipates calling back approximately 500 employees beginning this month. The restart process could take up to four months.

“We’ve worked closely and cooperatively with leadership of the United Steelworkers to develop a plan that will help us work through the restart process in the safest, most efficient manner possible while enabling longer-term collaboration designed to improve the plant’s competitiveness,” Burritt said. “We appreciate and thank the USW leadership and membership for their passionate efforts around the Section 232 investigation as well as in support of the restart process at Granite City Works. Together, we are committed to ensuring the steel industry remains a fundamental part of American manufacturing because American manufacturing is stronger with American-made steel.”

The company expects to provide information on the anticipated financial impact of the restart as more details on the President’s executive order become available for analysis in the coming days.

Both Granite City Works blast furnaces and its steelmaking facilities were idled in December 2015 and the plant’s hot strip mill was idled in January 2016 in response to challenging market conditions, including global excess steel capacity and unfairly traded imports. The pickle line, cold mill and finishing lines at Granite City Works continued to operate in line with customer demand. The hot strip mill was restarted in February 2017 as the company adjusted its hot strip mill operating configuration to meet customer needs after deciding to accelerate the pace of its asset revitalization efforts. Granite City's “A” blast furnace remains idled.

[Ender]

President Donald Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel imports is a near-term credit positive for steel producers, but it will hurt steel-consuming manufacturers and their workers, who greatly outnumber steelworkers, Moody’s Investors Service said Friday.

There are about 140,000 steelworkers in the U.S., according to the American Iron & Steel Institute, and about 6.5 million workers in steel-consuming manufacturers, Moody’s analysts wrote in reports published Friday.

“Workers in these consuming sectors will likely be hurt by higher steel prices,” they said. “Domestic manufacturers could also eventually switch to importing whole components of finished products that are made from steel to reduce their product costs, which would lead to reduced domestic steel demand in the long term.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-the-65-million-us-workers-at-steel-consuming-manufacturers-2018-03-02

[nobody's_hero]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-the-65-million-us-workers-at-steel-consuming-manufacturers-2018-03-02

They're gonna need to expand.

[Anti Federalist]

Unlimited "free trade" practiced by one nation is like unilateral disarmament.

Unless every nation is willing to drop all its trade restrictions, tariffs, internal subsidies, domestic regulations, environmental fatwas and so on, "free trade" is economic suicide.

[nobody's_hero]

Unlimited "free trade" practiced by one nation is like unilateral disarmament.

Unless every nation is willing to drop all its trade restrictions, tariffs, internal subsidies, domestic regulations, environmental fatwas and so on, "free trade" is economic suicide.

That, and wars are generally still considered wars whether or not you choose to fight. It only takes one side to start a war, and China has been in a trade war with us for a while now.

[specsaregood]

Unlimited "free trade" practiced by one nation is like unilateral disarmament.

Unless every nation is willing to drop all its trade restrictions, tariffs, internal subsidies, domestic regulations, environmental fatwas and so on, "free trade" is economic suicide.

And lets not forget that much --perhaps all -- of the free trade problem is caused by the federal reserve and the fact that we have the world reserve currency and unlimited credit card. It has allowed us to get fat and not produce anything except debt. Without that, we would have no choice but to produce goods to sell, less we starve.

If I wanted to destroy the US utterly, it sounds like a great plan... Let them live high on the hog until they no longer have any manufacturing base, then cancel the credit card and let them starve.

[nikcers]

And lets not forget that much --perhaps all -- of the free trade problem is caused by the federal reserve and the fact that we have the world reserve currency and unlimited credit card. It has allowed us to get fat and not produce anything except debt. Without that, we would have no choice but to produce goods to sell, less we starve.

If I wanted to destroy the US utterly, it sounds like a great plan... Let them live high on the hog until they no longer have any manufacturing base, then cancel the credit card and let them starve.
Yeah but free markets and free trade is what made America into an economic superpower. The left wants you to think it was slave trade but the truth is a lot of people poured their money into America -they wanted to avoid regulation and taxes in their own country. The idea is money goes where it is welcome- the idea of lowering taxes was to bring money back here, and it worked, Apple brought back 300 Billion. Now you are going to increase taxes which is just going to make money not want to come here.

[specsaregood]

Yeah but free markets and free trade is what made America into an economic superpower. The left wants you to think it was slave trade but the truth is a lot of people poured their money into America -they wanted to avoid regulation and taxes in their own country. The idea is money goes where it is welcome- the idea of lowering taxes was to bring money back here, and it worked, Apple brought back 300 Billion. Now you are going to increase taxes which is just going to make money not want to come here.

And perhaps high tariffs will cause a mass exit from using the USD as the world reserve currency... and forcing us to have to compete again.

[nikcers]

And perhaps high tariffs will cause a mass exit from using the USD as the world reserve currency... and forcing us to have to compete again.
This will increase prices which increases our taxes we have to pay if we ever get passed stagflation and get to inflation. Then if we are lucky the bad money from all this government spending hasn't driven out of all the good money in our country. My prediction is the government will be too big for us to do anything about it at this pace.

[axiomata]

While the tarrifs will help precipitate or worsen the coming economic collapse, the worst part is that they will be scapegoated as the main cause, and the principal culprit the Fed will get off Scott free.

[dannno]

US is starting this one.

You've got to be shitting me.

[The Northbreather]

So, I think remedial economics is in order for you. You're crossing your wires trying to make this analogy. But in theory, if what you are getting is more valuable to you than your money, then yes! Because you'd have goods to sell for more money later. You only trade to INCREASE your wealth - not to decrease it. What you seem to be suggesting is that we are trading more dollars than the value we are getting in return - but that is obviously not true. If it were, the trade wouldn't happen.

Yes and we PRINT THAT MONEY as well. It’s not like they’re stealing our dollars. We’re getting inexpensive products for printed money.

Tariffs are a tax on the American people plain and simple.

[devil21]

Tariffs? Or just the coming revaluation of currencies, making imports more expensive for dollar users (end of global dollar) and imports more affordable for yuan users.

[CaptUSA]

Unlimited "free trade" practiced by one nation is like unilateral disarmament.

Unless every nation is willing to drop all its trade restrictions, tariffs, internal subsidies, domestic regulations, environmental fatwas and so on, "free trade" is economic suicide.

You do realize that Ron Paul advocates for exactly that - dropping ALL of our trade restrictions regardless of what other countries may do. I'm closer to Ron Paul on this (although, I make some allowances to use lowering our current restrictions as leverage where possible). "Free trade" is nothing but good news for the country that would practice it.

They key to remember when trading is that you only do it when you gain more wealth out of it - otherwise, you wouldn't make the trade. You don't need governments to tell you that your trade isn't "fair" enough. That's between the people trading. If they both see the benefit, the trade happens and both parties are more wealthy than previously.

[specsaregood]

You do realize that Ron Paul advocates for exactly that - dropping ALL of our trade restrictions regardless of what other countries may do. I'm closer to Ron Paul on this (although, I make some allowances to use lowering our current restrictions as leverage where possible). "Free trade" is nothing but good news for the country that would practice it.

They key to remember when trading is that you only do it when you gain more wealth out of it - otherwise, you wouldn't make the trade. You don't need governments to tell you that your trade isn't "fair" enough. That's between the people trading. If they both see the benefit, the trade happens and both parties are more wealthy than previously.

Yes, I'm sure we are all for free trade in a theoretical free market environment. As it is, free trade is like giving hungry people fish for free until they no longer know how or have the means to fish for themselves.

[CaptUSA]

Yes, I'm sure we are all for free trade in a theoretical free market environment. As it is, free trade is like giving hungry people fish for free until they no longer know how or have the means to fish for themselves.

Hmmm... If they only ate fish, you might be right. But fortunately, the time they save from not fishing is spent on raising cows.

(In other words, when you get cheap stuff in one sector, you direct your resources to other endeavors. If they cheap stuff goes away, you can use your acquired wealth to adjust.)

[specsaregood]

Hmmm... If they only ate fish, you might be right. But fortunately, the time they save from not fishing is spent on raising cows.

(In other words, when you get cheap stuff in one sector, you direct your resources to other endeavors. If they cheap stuff goes away, you can use your acquired wealth to adjust.)

I see little evidence of that. Guess we'll see how things shake out.

[seapilot]

Goldman Sachs is against the tariffs and says they will help China and Russia. If Goldman does not like it then it can not be all bad.The FRN note is becoming more and more devalued and we have been getting a free ride for awhile now. How much longer will the exporting countries continue to take the FRN for real goods? Nothing wrong with USA to start producing its own products again.

[Ender]

Goldman Sachs is against the tariffs and says they will help China and Russia. If Goldman does not like it then it can not be all bad.The FRN note is becoming more and more devalued and we have been getting a free ride for awhile now. How much longer will the exporting countries continue to take the FRN for real goods? Nothing wrong with USA to start producing its own products again.

This will not help in producing products but will drive costs up. Expect to see a few more workers in the steel industry hired and a ton of workers in production using steel, fired.

[timosman]

This will not help in producing products but will drive costs up. Expect to see a few more workers in the steel industry hired and a ton of workers in production using steel, fired.

US can not produce enough steel?:confused:

[Ender]

US can not produce enough steel?:confused:

is it now?

[Ender]

Congressman Ron Paul on Bush's Steel Tariffs:


Protectionism vs. Liberty
By Ron Paul

March 16, 2002

by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

I am disheartened by the administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. Make no mistake about it, these tariffs represent naked protectionism at its worst, a blatant disregard of any remaining free-market principles to gain the short-term favor of certain special interests. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of “fair trade” when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. True free trade, by definition, takes place only in the absence of government interference of any kind, including tariffs. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.

We’ve all heard about how these tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. We forget that tariffs are taxes, and that imposing tariffs means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on American steel consumers? Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. In doing so, it chose to ignore basic economics for the sake of political expediency. Now I grant you that this is hardly anything new in this town, but it’s important that we see these tariffs as the political favors that they are. This has nothing to do with fairness. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.

We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import steel, such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of these import taxes will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. So the administration moved to protect domestic steel interests, with an eye toward the upcoming midterm elections. It moved to help members who represent steel-producing states. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re “protecting American workers.” What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat. Sure, some rank and file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do steelworkers really have a right to demand that Americans pay higher taxes to save an industry that should be required to compete on its own?

If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.

What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO “partners.” The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war, and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!

It’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. Even some modern Keynesian economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate resources better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that government needs to manage trade, when it really needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace determine the cost of goods. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[Anti Federalist]

You do realize that Ron Paul advocates for exactly that - dropping ALL of our trade restrictions regardless of what other countries may do. I'm closer to Ron Paul on this (although, I make some allowances to use lowering our current restrictions as leverage where possible). "Free trade" is nothing but good news for the country that would practice it.

They key to remember when trading is that you only do it when you gain more wealth out of it - otherwise, you wouldn't make the trade. You don't need governments to tell you that your trade isn't "fair" enough. That's between the people trading. If they both see the benefit, the trade happens and both parties are more wealthy than previously.

Oh I am well aware of that, it's one of the few position I disagree with Ron on.

I've never been a "free trader" or an open borders person.

[Zippyjuan]

Goldman Sachs is against the tariffs and says they will help China and Russia. If Goldman does not like it then it can not be all bad.The FRN note is becoming more and more devalued and we have been getting a free ride for awhile now. How much longer will the exporting countries continue to take the FRN for real goods? Nothing wrong with USA to start producing its own products again.

A strong dollar will increase our trade deficit. A strong dollar makes what we import cheaper- encouraging more of them- while making our exports more expensive to the countries buying them- discouraging that. That benefits countries like China (and is why the try to keep the value of their currency low relative to the dollar).

[Anti Federalist]

And lets not forget that much --perhaps all -- of the free trade problem is caused by the federal reserve and the fact that we have the world reserve currency and unlimited credit card. It has allowed us to get fat and not produce anything except debt. Without that, we would have no choice but to produce goods to sell, less we starve.

If I wanted to destroy the US utterly, it sounds like a great plan... Let them live high on the hog until they no longer have any manufacturing base, then cancel the credit card and let them starve.

Insert "he's right, you know" meme here

[AZJoe]

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29572270_10156250005237248_1109767949885226139_n.j pg?_nc_cat=0&oh=e9e2978b749388696890e2edf9aa1359&oe=5B29A684Feeling the Pinch: U.S. Lobster Exports Tank Thanks to Trump's Trade War (https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/12/feeling-the-pinch-lobster-exports-tank)

[AZJoe]

Trump’s Tariffs Betray Base, Cripple More than 200 businesses, farmers, and manufacturers identified as tariff victims (https://terribletariffs.com/stories/)

But the causalities keep piling up. Below is a list of more than 200 separate businesses that have been negatively impacted by Trump’s tariffs. … lost vendors, lost customers, and lost earnings. To compensate, businesses are raising prices, laying off employees, and forgoing hiring & expansion plans.

Many of these victims are the small businesses, manufacturers, and farmers … The consequences to them will only be exacerbated if Trump doubles tariffs on Chinese goods as he reportedly plans to do. …

See List at Link (https://terribletariffs.com/stories/)

[bunklocoempire]

90. Lincoln Electric: The welding equipment and supplies maker is raising prices on so-called consumables via surcharges to offset the costs of tariffs.

Not just Lincoln. All consumable prices will rise.

The consumables were plenty high for our small regulator/torch rebuild shop 5 years ago. (EPA regs., $4 Saudi gas burp, increase in brass prices/neoprene, etc.)
We downsized the family venture in 2013, and will end all legal business activity this year.

Trump and Republican majorities aren't aggressively addressing my 2003 - 2013 challenges, but now, tariffs.

LOL

[Zippyjuan]

Trump said he would go "all in" if China responded to his tariffs. They did. Will he now tariff the rest of our imports from China? Or will he wait until after the elections to avoid hurting the economy before then?

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2018/09/18/carmakers-fret-latest-us-china-tariffs/1349916002/


Carmakers fret latest round of U.S.-China tariffs

Automakers stand to be exposed to new tariffs on goods ranging from tires to transmission and brake parts that have been announced by President Donald Trump and China in a burgeoning trade war.

The Trump administration levied a new 10 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods on Monday night. The tariffs, set to take effect on Sept. 24, are scheduled to increase to 25 percent on Jan. 1. China retaliated with $60 billion worth of new tariffs of its own.

Automakers have decried the new tariffs. They say the new levies on both sides will hamper their ability to import or export cars and the parts needed to repair them, a complaint that so far has failed to gain traction with the Trump White House.

"Applying an additional $200 billion in tariffs on China’s exports to the United States will further harm the U.S. auto industry and American workers and consumers," John Bozzella, CEO of the Association of Global Automakers, which lobbies for foreign-owned car manufacturers, said in a statement.

"Retaliation by China to tariffs already in place has made U.S. auto exports uncompetitive and will eliminate our bilateral auto trade surplus," Bozzella continued. "We support the administration’s efforts to negotiate long-term solutions to the serious issues of (intellectual property) protection and investment restrictions but are concerned that escalating trade tensions will not produce the desired results.”

Among the new tariffs announced by the Trump administration are "gaskets, washers and other seals, of noncellular vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber, for use in automotive goods" and "wastes of metal-pickling liquors, hydraulic fluids, brake fluids and anti‐freeze fluids."

The new round of U.S. levies also includes "transmission shafts and cranks other than camshafts and crankshafts" and "new pneumatic radial tires, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars (including station wagons and racing cars)."

Michigan's agricultural sector also stands to take another hit under the latest round of tariffs. Commodities such as soybeans, wheat and corn starch are included in the Trump administration's list of goods that are going to be slapped with new tariffs on Sept. 24. China has previously targeted U.S. goods like coffee, honey and industrial chemicals, which would also affect Michigan companies such as Midland-based Dow Chemical Co.



More at link.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/macys-ceo-gennette-says-china-tariffs-has-not-gone-the-way-we-hoped.html


Macy's CEO Gennette says China tariffs situation 'has not gone the way we hoped'

Macy's CEO Jeff Gennette said the Trump administration's decision Monday to impose a fresh round of tariffs on Chinese goods "has not gone the way we hoped it would."

The department store chain has been working with suppliers in Asia to prepare for potentially higher tariffs in the administration's escalating global trade war, he told CNBC's Courtney Reagan at the Code Commerce conference in New York Monday evening.

President Donald Trump announced plans to impose 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports starting Monday, saying the country's trade practices pose a "grave threat" to the long-term health of the U.S. economy. Those duties will rise to 25 percent Jan. 1.

"With the recent announcement even today, we do expect that there will be more tariffs," Gennette. "It's going to start to affect a department store retailer more significantly because of the apparel pieces that are going to be part of it."

The National Retail Federation said the tariffs will increase the costs of consumer goods and could slow down a rebound in the retail sector so far this year. Macy's just announced plans to hire more than 80,000 holiday workers to keep up with consumer demand this season, and its shares are up by more than 40 percent so far this year.

"Every time this trade war escalates, the risk to U.S. consumers grows," NRF CEO Matt Shay said in a statement. "With these latest tariffs, many hardworking Americans will soon wonder why their shopping bills are higher and their budgets feel stretched. ... We cannot afford further escalation, especially with the holiday shopping season right around the corner."


More at link.

[phill4paul]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/macys-ceo-gennette-says-china-tariffs-has-not-gone-the-way-we-hoped.html



More at link.

Macy's. Lol. Omegerds, we can't buy cheap crap and mark it up 150%. Woe be on us.

We cannot be out tariffed. This Trump knows.

[Zippyjuan]

Macy's. Lol. Omegerds, we can't buy cheap crap and mark it up 150%. Woe be on us.

We cannot be out tariffed. This Trump knows.

The more tariffs, the more people get hurt. Small business gets hurt the worst because they cannot sustain the losses or pass along the costs as easily as the bigger guys can. He is going to cost a lot of jobs in this country while pretending to save them.

[Swordsmyth]

The more tariffs, the more people get hurt. Small business gets hurt the worst because they cannot sustain the losses or pass along the costs as easily as the bigger guys can. He is going to cost a lot of jobs in this country while pretending to save them.
There may be a short term spike but in the long run we would lose far more if we don't fight back in the trade wars.