Donald Trump, Steel Tariffs, and the Costs of Chaos

[timosman]

https://www.cfr.org/blog/donald-trump-steel-tariffs-and-costs-chaos


Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum is the most significant set of U.S. import restrictions in nearly half a century. It will have huge consequences for the global trading order.

Blog Post by Edward Alden

March 1, 2018

https://cfrd8-files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_header_l_16x9_600px/public/image/2018/03/RTX35WGS_0.jpg
A worker checks steel wires at a warehouse in Dalian, Liaoning province, China. Reuters.

When President Nixon announced on August 15, 1971 that the United States would impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on imports—the most significant import restrictions since the 1930s—it followed an intense weekend of deliberations among his top officials at Camp David. Nixon’s economic brain trust spent three days carefully hammering out the details of the import restraints, and then signaled to the world that the president was prepared to lift them as soon as U.S. trading partners allowed their currencies to rise. The tariffs were removed four months later after a negotiated agreement.

When President Trump announced March 1, 2018 that the United States would impose 25 percent tariffs on imported steel and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum—the most significant import restrictions since 1971—it followed a morning of sheer chaos in the White House. The administration had announced the night before that leading steel and aluminum makers were invited to the White House, leading to speculation that new tariffs would be announced. But in the morning White House officials backed off, with the press office saying instead that it would only be a “listening session.” And then, with the cameras rolling and his own staff apparently unprepared, President Trump announced that the tariffs would be unveiled next week and would be kept in place “for a long period of time.”

It was once said that Britain lost its empire in a fit of absent-mindedness; the United States, it now appears, could lose its own in a fit of Donald Trump’s impulsiveness.

The precise contours of the new measures are still unknown. The administration may exempt still large suppliers like Canada and Brazil, and may exclude some products, though Trump told industry officials he does not want exemptions. There will be frenetic lobbying between now and the final announcement. And the negative market reaction—the Dow Jones fell about 600 points after the announcement—could stay the president’s hand.

But the issue is not simply the economic consequences. The president’s announcement yesterday was the clearest and most disturbing sign yet that he is quite prepared to take ill-considered actions that will chip away at the foundations of the global trading system.

The problems in the steel and aluminum industries are real—global overcapacity caused primarily by Chinese state subsidies to their producers. But the proposed measures are wildly indiscriminate, and will hit many countries, among them the closest U.S. allies and others that have played by the rules of the trading system.

The new tariffs rely on a provision of law—Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which allows imports to be blocked on national security grounds—that has not been used successfully in decades. Previous administrations had interpreted the provision narrowly, requiring evidence that the military needs of the Pentagon could not be supplied by U.S. production or by close allies like Canada. Trump’s Commerce Department threw away a half century of precedent in finding that steel imports, including from the most-trusted U.S. allies, had caused “a weakening of our internal economy [that] may impair national security.”

Under current global trade rules, the United States will get away with it. Article XXI of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements states that countries are free to take actions they deem essential to their security interests. But WTO members have been cautious not to abuse that provision, recognizing the obvious danger. Now the United States—a country that has long championed the WTO system—will blow a giant loophole in the rules that other countries will eagerly walk through. China, India, Brazil and others are more than capable of inventing similar national security rationales for restricting imports.

The most encouraging thing that can be said is that, as the great Yogi Berra once put it, “it ain’t over till it’s over.” The president’s impromptu announcement will generate a huge pushback. The potential losses for the big steel-using manufacturers—including the Big Three auto companies, construction equipment firms like Caterpillar and John Deere and the construction sector more broadly—will have them all beating a path to the White House and Congress.

Trump’s more conventionally-minded aides, like National Economic Advisor Gary Cohn, may succeed in watering down the measures. The Pentagon has also warned about the “negative impact on our key allies.” Foreign governments, including the European Union and China, have said they will retaliate and target U.S. exporters. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called the measure “blatant intervention to protect U.S. domestic industry and not based on any national security justification.” Important Trump allies in Congress are in revolt—Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called the tariffs “a tax hike the American people don’t need and can’t afford.”

But even if the measures finally unveiled are more limited, great damage is being done. The United States built the architecture of the global economy in its image. The WTO was largely a U.S. creation. Now Donald Trump, in a fit of impulsiveness, may tear it all down.

[Swordsmyth]

Burn the WTO to the ground!

[PierzStyx]

The sad thing is that so many people are so completely ignorant of the benefit of trade that they imagine that this will somehow turn out well when in reality the costs of everything with aluminum and steel in them will rise (and consider how many things that covers), this will lead to inflation in other sectors to make up costs, how this will lead to a more impoverished society as we have less of those things produced and waste precious labor, money, and resources producing what could have been cheaply and more easily produced abroad. The only people who benefit are American crony corporatists who will face less competition and therefore not have to keep prices lower or produce as high quality products because they have less to fear from a nation that is forced to buy from them. Any benefit you thought you would see from the cut in the corporate tax rate was just destroyed by the raising in tariffs and the resultant raise in costs and loss of production. This is a major wound aimed directly at the heart of the American people in favor of the elites and those businesses which benefit from government connections.

All of which of course shouldn't be a surprise coming from Il Douche. Fascists have been corpratists who cared more for those in power than the people or liberty since the original Mussolini emerged on teh scene. Cheeto Mussolini is no different. Especially when you look at his desire to seize people's guns and completely ignore the rule of law, human rights, property rights, and restrictions on government power.

[Swordsmyth]

The sad thing is that so many people are so completely ignorant of the benefit of trade that they imagine that this will somehow turn out well when in reality the costs of everything with aluminum and steel in them will rise (and consider how many things that covers), this will lead to inflation in other sectors to make up costs, how this will lead to a more impoverished society as we have less of those things produced and waste precious labor, money, and resources producing what could have been cheaply and more easily produced abroad. The only people who benefit are American crony corporatists who will face less competition and therefore not have to keep prices lower or produce as high quality products because they have less to fear from a nation that is forced to buy from them. Any benefit you thought you would see from the cut in the corporate tax rate was just destroyed by the raising in tariffs and the resultant raise in costs and loss of production. This is a major wound aimed directly at the heart of the American people in favor of the elites and those businesses which benefit from government connections.

All of which of course shouldn't be a surprise coming from Il Douche. Fascists have been corpratists who cared more for those in power than the people or liberty since the original Mussolini emerged on teh scene. Cheeto Mussolini is no different. Especially when you look at his desire to seize people's guns and completely ignore the rule of law, human rights, property rights, and restrictions on government power.

Tell us more about the wonders of global government comrade.

[PierzStyx]

Tell us more about the wonders of global government comrade.

See what I mean? Idiots can't tell the difference between free market capitalism and communism.

And of course they're too dumb to understand that what they're defending- a central state with power to regulate the economy and determine what can and cannot be brought into the country, how much of it can be, and what the price of it must be- is the foundation of Socialism as it depends on the idea that the government has the authority to regulate the economy and private property, which makes them Socialists for defending it, in this case National Socialists.

[timosman]

See what I mean? Idiots can't tell the difference between free market capitalism and communism.

And of course they're too dumb to understand that what they're defending- a central state with power to regulate the economy and determine what can and cannot be brought into the country, how much of it can be, and what the price of it must be- is the foundation of Socialism as it depends on the idea that the government has the authority to regulate the economy and private property, which makes them Socialists for defending it, in this case National Socialists.

National Socialists? You have outdone yourself. :cool:

[Brian4Liberty]

https://www.cfr.org/blog/donald-trump-steel-tariffs-and-costs-chaos

Thus saith The Council...


It's a complex issue.

For Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, a US tariff might expose their pyramid scheme, or make it crumble entirely. A tariff must be fought to the death (of the people calling for a tariff). This will be the establishment position.
...

[Swordsmyth]

See what I mean? Idiots can't tell the difference between free market capitalism and communism.

And of course they're too dumb to understand that what they're defending- a central state with power to regulate the economy and determine what can and cannot be brought into the country, how much of it can be, and what the price of it must be- is the foundation of Socialism as it depends on the idea that the government has the authority to regulate the economy and private property, which makes them Socialists for defending it, in this case National Socialists.

You are attacking a step in the right direction, currently globalist oligarchs manipulate trade to their advantage, this move decentralizes trade control which is a step closer to your supposed ideal of "free trade", but we know your pattern, you use perfectionism to criticize anyone or anything that moves the world in the right direction while staying silent about those that keep the world where it is or make it worse.

The fact that tariffs are one of the better forms of taxation to support government's legitimate functions or that they can sometimes be a necessary defense when other countries engage in trade war is another subject but even you SHOULD support this move away from big world government control of trade IF you weren't a troll.

[TheTexan]

It's just steel, it's not like raising the price will have tremendous impact on rest of economy

[r3volution 3.0]

The sad thing is that so many people are so completely ignorant of the benefit of trade that they imagine that this will somehow turn out well when in reality the costs of everything with aluminum and steel in them will rise (and consider how many things that covers), this will lead to inflation in other sectors to make up costs, how this will lead to a more impoverished society as we have less of those things produced and waste precious labor, money, and resources producing what could have been cheaply and more easily produced abroad. The only people who benefit are American crony corporatists who will face less competition and therefore not have to keep prices lower or produce as high quality products because they have less to fear from a nation that is forced to buy from them. Any benefit you thought you would see from the cut in the corporate tax rate was just destroyed by the raising in tariffs and the resultant raise in costs and loss of production. This is a major wound aimed directly at the heart of the American people in favor of the elites and those businesses which benefit from government connections.

All of which of course shouldn't be a surprise coming from Il Douche. Fascists have been corpratists who cared more for those in power than the people or liberty since the original Mussolini emerged on teh scene. Cheeto Mussolini is no different. Especially when you look at his desire to seize people's guns and completely ignore the rule of law, human rights, property rights, and restrictions on government power.

Well said


Thus saith The Council...

That's why the OP chose to link that particular article, of course (CFR says Trump bad --> Trump must be good).

[Swordsmyth]

Well said



That's why the OP chose to link that particular article, of course (CFR says Trump bad --> Trump must be good).
Another globalist chimes in to defend the WTO and the CFR. Who could have guessed?:rolleyes:

[kcchiefs6465]

Another globalist chimes in to defend the WTO and the CFR. Who could have guessed?:rolleyes:
The enemy of an enemy is not always a friend.

[Swordsmyth]

The enemy of an enemy is not always a friend.

No, but this is a step in the right direction.

[kcchiefs6465]

No, but this is a step in the right direction.
If the direction is to make America poorer then yes, it is a step in the right direction.

[Swordsmyth]

If the direction is to make America poorer then yes, it is a step in the right direction.
The direction is to free America from globalist world government.

[kcchiefs6465]

The direction is to free America from globalist world government.
The poor in this country will clamor for any reprieve. How is making economic conditions worse for the average American going to protect or block world government?

And furthermore, a world government or a government who strives to govern the world?

The closest thing to a world government is the United States. Further centralizing power into the hands of the United States and its proxy global agencies coupled with making the average ignorant American poorer-- your position is that freedom arises from this?

[Swordsmyth]

The poor in this country will clamor for any reprieve. How is making economic conditions worse for the average American going to protect or block world government?

And furthermore, a world government or a government who strives to govern the world?

The closest thing to a world government is the United States. Further centralizing power into the hands of the United States and its proxy global agencies coupled with making the average ignorant American poorer-- your position is that freedom arises from this?

The WTO is part of the UN etc. world government architecture that is controlled by communists and other people who are even worse than our elites, ending the WTO is good, after the WTO is destroyed we can debate where our tariffs should be set and whether we should defend ourselves from trade warfare.
War must be fought on every front, we can't concentrate on just a few or we will fall to a flank attack.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/2/17072268/wilbur-ross-tariff-steel-big-deal


Trump’s commerce secretary: tariffs raising car prices $175 is “trivial”

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross defended President Donald Trump’s plan to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum with a can of Campbell soup, a Budweiser tallboy, and some basic arithmetic.

“In a can of Campbell’s Soup, there are about 2.6 pennies’ worth of steel,” Ross argued, holding up a can of soup on CNBC. “So if that goes up by 25 percent, that’s about six-tenths of 1 cent on the price on a can of Campbell’s soup. I just bought this can today at a 7-Eleven ... and it’s priced at a $1.99. Who in the world is going to be too bothered?”

Ross is responding to widespread criticism that Trump’s announcement to place a 25 percent import tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum would likely lead to a trade war, raise prices for American businesses that buy steel and aluminum, and in turn increase prices for consumers.

Republican governors, senators, and representatives have all come out against the plan — even Trump’s chief economic adviser Gary Cohn is against it. Among its supporters are trade hawks like White House adviser Peter Navarro and some Rust Belt Democrats, including Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH) and Bob Casey (PA).

But Ross argued that any consumer price increases would be negligible and have “a trivial effect” on consumers.

He went on to give another example:

“There’s about one ton of steel in a car,” Ross said on CNN. “The price of a ton of steel is $700 or so, so 25 percent on that would be one half of 1 percent price increase on the typical $35,000 car. So it’s no big deal.”

In his estimate, that would amount to a roughly $175 price increase on a car.

[enhanced_deficit]

Some peoples on Morning Joe were claiming it was "Wag the dog" trade war move cuz he wanted to divert attention away from his gun control comments , so many of his staff leaving amid reports of Kushner investigation by Mueller etc. Donny also said at least no people died in this wag the dog move even if many people lost lot of money. They (Joe and Donney)also claimed to be Trump's friends for decades and then insulted him by calling him 'so bad', 'evil' and such names.


Trump tweets: 'Trade wars are good, and easy to win'

Reuters-13 hours ago

“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win,” Trump's tweet read.“Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore-we win big. It's easy!”.

https://pics.me.me/wag-the-dog-to-start-a-war-or-military-operation-18982868.png




And leave to NBC to disrespect a sitting POTUS like this:

Trump was angry and 'unglued' when he started a trade war, officials say (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-was-angry-unglued-when-he-started-trade-war-officials-n852641)
NBCNews.com 6h ago

[Zippyjuan]

Some peoples on Morning Joe were claiming it was "Wag the dog" trade war move cuz he wanted to divert attention away from his gun control comments , so many of his staff leaving amid reports of Kushner investigation by Mueller etc. Donny also said at least no people died in this wag the dog move even if many people lost lot of money. They (Joe and Donney)also claimed to be Trump's friends for decades and then insulted him by calling him 'so bad', 'evil' and such names.


Trump tweets: 'Trade wars are good, and easy to win'

Reuters-13 hours ago

“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win,” Trump's tweet read.“Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore-we win big. It's easy!”.



Win win! We get higher prices and fewer jobs! We export less. Everybody is better off!

https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/e56/88/3065be01a543a4c2-1900x1024.jpg


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

Potential EU tariff retaliation for motorcycles, bourbon, and blue jeans. Others talking possibly on agriculture products.


Trump steel tariffs: European Union gears up for trade war

European Union officials have said they will respond "firmly" if US President Donald Trump presses ahead with his plan for steep global duties on metals.

EU trade chiefs are considering slapping 25% tariffs on around $3.5bn (£2.5bn) of imports from the US, Reuters news agency reports.

World Trade Organization Director General Roberto Azevedo said: "A trade war is in no one's interests."

The rhetoric ramped up as Mr Trump tweeted that "trade wars are good".

International condemnation has greeted the US president's Thursday announcement that he plans to impose a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% on aluminium next week.

What are EU officials saying?
The European Union is reported to be considering retaliatory tariffs, targeting US steel, agriculture and other products.

European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker promised to react firmly.

"We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk," he said.

Speaking to a German TV programme, he vowed: "We will put tariffs on Harley-Davidson, on bourbon and on blue jeans - Levi's."

French economy minister Bruno Le Maire said there would "only be losers" in a US-EU trade war.

Mr Le Maire vowed a "strong, co-ordinated and united response from the EU".


Who else is unhappy?

Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and Brazil also say they are considering retaliatory steps.

The prime minister of Canada - which exports more steel to the US than any other country - slammed the tariffs as "absolutely unacceptable".

Justin Trudeau told reporters in Ontario he is "confident we're going to continue to be able to defend Canadian industry".


What are the stakes for US?
Mr Trump has lamented the decline of the US steel industry, which since 2000 has seen production drop from 112m tons to 86.5m tons in 2016.

The number of employees working in the sector has fallen over the same period from 135,000 to 83,600.

But experts say far more Americans work in industries that depend on steel products, than are employed in steel plants.

Steel mills in 2015 employed about 140,000 Americans, according to census data.

But 6.5 million Americans work for manufacturers who make things using steel.

20% of our imported steel comes from Canada. China only supplies about five percent.

[goldenequity]

969636119833792512

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/steel-tariffs-consequences/554690/


Trump Repeats Nixon's Folly

President Trump just raised the price of cars, beer, vacations, and apartment rentals.

That’s not what most headlines say. Those headlines say that Trump will raise tariffs on steel and aluminum. Higher tariffs mean higher prices for those inputs—and therefore for the products ultimately made from those outputs. Automotive and construction top the largest users of steel in the United States. Aluminum is heavily used to make airplanes, cars and trucks, and beverage containers, and also in construction.

The last time the U.S. imposed steel tariffs, back in 2002, the project was abandoned after 20 months. A 2003 report commissioned by industries that consumed steel estimated that the Bush steel tariffs cost in excess of 200,000 jobs—or more than the total number of people then employed in the entire steel industry at the time.

This time the cost-benefit ratio is likely to skew much worse. There are fewer steel jobs to protect this time. Auto sales growth has stalled. The first warnings of consumer price inflation are appearing.

But Trump wanted tariffs, and tariffs he has got. Even by Trump standards, the decision-making process was chaos. As late as 9 p.m. last night, it remained undecided whether there would be an announcement today at all—never mind what that announcement would be. Key congressional committee chairs were unconsulted and uninformed.

The president as so often relied on junk information. The advice of the economic populist Peter Navarro (previously best known for blood-curdling anti-China documentaries) was heeded over that of actual trade experts. Industries seeking protection reportedly bought commercials on Fox & Friends. Apparently a decisive event in the debate was the firing of staff secretary Rob Porter, after revelations that he had engaged in spousal abuse. Porter had also chaired the weekly trade debate, forcing the president to confront the costs and harms of protectionism. His removal also empowered Trump’s worst instincts.

The usual rules of trade policy were ignored. For authority, Trump invoked a trade law premised on protecting war-essential industries. Yet this authority is plainly a pretext. The Department of Defense intervention in the debate shredded the logic of protectionists like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, himself a former steel man.


U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about 3 percent of U.S. production. Therefore, DoD does not believe that the findings in the reports [of harm to domestic steel and aluminum producers from foreign competition] impact the ability of DoD programs to acquire the steel or aluminum necessary to meet national defense requirements.

What did alarm the Department of Defense about proposed steel and aluminum tariffs was potential harm to vital U.S. alliances. China does not rank among the top 10 steel exporters to the United States. That list is topped by Canada, followed by Brazil. In third place is South Korea, an indispensable ally in the preemptive war the Trump administration is now contemplating against North Korea.

Canada also heads the list of aluminum exporters. For that reason, DoD pleaded for even more caution with regard to aluminum tariffs than steel. “[If] the Administration takes action on steel, DoD recommends waiting before taking further steps on aluminum.”

Trump announced simultaneous action on both—without itemizing which countries would be subject to the tariffs, and which exempt. Trump’s unpredictability and threatening language have not only jolted U.S. financial markets, but have done further damage to the U.S.-led alliance system. European Union trade ministers agreed earlier this week to retaliate if the U.S. imposes steel tariffs, further degrading a U.S.-EU relationship already badly damaged by Trump’s hostility to NATO and deference to Russia.

Donald Trump is often compared to Richard Nixon in his disdain for law and ethics. The parallel applies to economics too. Nixon in 1971 quit the Bretton Woods agreement and imposed a surtax on all imports. The “shock” disrupted the world economy and profoundly angered formerly trusting friends already uneasy over the war in Vietnam. But Nixon, who knew little and cared less about economics, had his eye fixed on one concern only: the 1972 election. His emergency economic measures—joined to a loosening of monetary policy and a big increase in Social Security payouts the next year—were selected with an eye to one concern only. In the words of Allen Matusow, the shrewdest student of Nixon’s economic policy, “Somehow he had to make the economy hum by 1972 or face likely defeat in his quest for reelection.” What that meant in practice, Matsuow wrote, was that Nixon governed not according to what would work in the long term, but according to “the prevailing mood of the two-thirds of the country he called the ‘constituency of uneducated people.’”

Nixon did indeed win in 1972. He also bequeathed his country not only the worst political scandal in its history to date, but a decade of stagflation that bore most heavily upon the very people Nixon claimed to champion. We’ve been there before; it looks like we’re returning there again.

[dannno]

If the direction is to make America poorer then yes, it is a step in the right direction.

Although free trade is beneficial and generally most efficient from a philosophical standpoint and on paper, when you have trade imbalances like we have then it can artificially affect things like national security (not producing important goods and materials that we would otherwise produce) and it can weaken the dollar.

Balancing trade and then negotiating better trade deals can help make both countries stronger, more independent and wealthier.

[oyarde]

It's just steel, it's not like raising the price will have tremendous impact on rest of economy

Really , do you not make everything with plastic now ?

[Zippyjuan]

Really , do you not make everything with plastic now ?

Texan like sarcasm.

[oyarde]

I really do not see that this tariff should matter , but I still would not have done it . I actually think growth is slowing .

[AZJoe]

969525362580484098

[AZJoe]

The WSJ:

"This tax increase will punish American workers, invite retaliation that will harm U.S. exports, divide his political coalition at home, anger allies abroad, and undermine his tax and regulatory reforms."

[timosman]

That's why the OP chose to link that particular article, of course (CFR says Trump bad --> Trump must be good).

You need to start reading before quoting, otherwise you might end up appropriating the opposing view points. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519920-Posting-more-than-reading

[timosman]

The WSJ:

"This tax increase will punish American workers, invite retaliation that will harm U.S. exports, divide his political coalition at home, anger allies abroad, and undermine his tax and regulatory reforms."

This sounds serious, but at least they do not claim the stock market will crash this time.:cool:

[AZJoe]

From ZeroHedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/wsj-editors-biggest-policy-blunder-trumps-presidency):

The immediate impact will be to make the U.S. an island of high-priced steel and aluminum. …

Mr. Trump seems not to understand that steel-using industries in the U.S. employ some 6.5 million Americans, while steel makers employ about 140,000. …

Instead of importing steel to make goods in America, many companies will simply import the finished product made from cheaper steel or aluminum abroad.

Mr. Trump fancies himself the savior of the U.S. auto industry, but he might note that Ford Motor (http://quotes.wsj.com/F) shares fell 3% Thursday and GM’s fell 4%. U.S. Steel (http://quotes.wsj.com/X) gained 5.8%. Mr. Trump has handed a giant gift to foreign car makers, which will now have a cost advantage over Detroit. …

The National Retail Federation called the tariffs a “tax on American families,” who will pay higher prices for canned goods and even beer in aluminum cans. Another name for this is the Trump voter tax.

The economic damage will quickly compound because other countries can and will retaliate against U.S. exports. Not steel, but against farm goods, Harley-Davidson (http://quotes.wsj.com/HOG) motorcycles, Cummins engines, John Deere tractors, and much more. Foreign countries are canny enough to know how to impose maximum political pain …

Then there’s the diplomatic damage … Mr. Trump is declaring a unilateral exception to U.S. trade agreements that other countries won’t forget and will surely emulate. The national security threat from foreign steel is preposterous because China supplies only 2.2% of U.S. imports and Russia 8.7%. … Canada … supplies 16%, South Korea 10%, Brazil 13% and Mexico 9%. …

Canada buys more American steel than any other country, accounting for 50% of U.S. steel exports. Mr. Trump is punishing our most important trading partner …

[AZJoe]

EU promises retaliation for Trump's tariffs. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/eu-donald-trump-trade-tarrifs-retalliation-harley-davidson-bourbon-whiskey-levi-jeans-a8237421.html)

[seapilot]

Can we get rid of the income tax now that we are back to taxing imports?

[Zippyjuan]

Can we get rid of the income tax now that we are back to taxing imports?

To replace the income tax you need about a 200% tariff on all imports.

[Danke]

To replace the income tax you need about a 200% tariff on all imports.


Or you could cut spending. Just a thought...

[Zippyjuan]

Or you could cut spending. Just a thought...

Neither party has shown any seriousness about even trying that.

[kcchiefs6465]

Although free trade is beneficial and generally most efficient from a philosophical standpoint and on paper, when you have trade imbalances like we have then it can artificially affect things like national security (not producing important goods and materials that we would otherwise produce) and it can weaken the dollar.

Balancing trade and then negotiating better trade deals can help make both countries stronger, more independent and wealthier.
I know the arguments.

"Can" "could" "might" just be bullshit.

[AuH20]

Trade wars lead to a greater free market, when one side relents. Trump has a huge card to play in terms of market access. The EU & Asia can't win.

[Zippyjuan]

Although free trade is beneficial and generally most efficient from a philosophical standpoint and on paper, when you have trade imbalances like we have then it can artificially affect things like national security (not producing important goods and materials that we would otherwise produce) and it can weaken the dollar.

Balancing trade and then negotiating better trade deals can help make both countries stronger, more independent and wealthier.

Strong dollar encourages a bigger trade deficit. It makes our imports cheaper for us to buy and makes goods we export more expensive for other countries to buy from us.

More imports + fewer exports= bigger trade deficit.

[specsaregood]

To replace the income tax you need about a 200% tariff on all imports.

done, lets do it. I can avoid imports.

[Zippyjuan]

done, lets do it. I can avoid imports.

Not as easily as you may think. Many domestically produced goods include imported components. Also higher prices for imports means local producers can sell their goods at higher prices so things will cost more.

[phill4paul]

... higher prices for imports means local producers can sell their goods at higher prices so things will cost more.

They'll make more money, hire more workers, give them better pay, create an American manufacturing middle-class as we once had, a middle-class means they can afford locally produced, but higher priced, products. Sounds like America before NAFTA. :cool:

[Zippyjuan]

They'll make more money, hire more workers, give them better pay, create an American manufacturing middle-class as we once had, a middle-class means they can afford locally produced, but higher priced, products. Sounds like America before NAFTA. :cool:

Assuming that the company doesn't just pocket the higher profits.

https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-profits-and-wages.jpg

The companies needing steel and aluminum (vastly more than steel and aluminum producers- the steel industry has about 80,000 workers- metal using company workers are in the millions) will face higher costs and will raise prices of what they produce and hire fewer workers or pay the ones they have less. The steel factory gains but the rest lose. It is a net loss to the overall economy. And if the countries facing our tariffs decide to retaliate, more US companies will be hurt.

[dannno]

Assuming that the company doesn't just pocket the higher profits.

https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-profits-and-wages.jpg

The companies needing steel and aluminum (vastly more than steel and aluminum producers- the steel industry has about 80,000 workers- metal using company workers are in the millions) will face higher costs and will raise prices of what they produce and hire fewer workers or pay the ones they have less. The steel factory gains but the rest lose. It is a net loss to the overall economy. And if the countries facing our tariffs decide to retaliate, more US companies will be hurt.

With the lower corporate tax rate, it makes more sense for the companies to re-invest their profits into the company and grow.

[dannno]

Strong dollar encourages a bigger trade deficit. It makes our imports cheaper for us to buy and makes goods we export more expensive for other countries to buy from us.

More imports + fewer exports= bigger trade deficit.

So then there is the other side of the equation which is tariffs, the side you describe then balances out the more expensive import costs from the tariffs and the cheaper goods we will export that will be cheaper once the other countries lower their tariffs in order to get more access to our markets.

Ends up somewhere in the middle, with less trade imbalances, and I'm guessing a lower trade deficit.

[Zippyjuan]

So then there is the other side of the equation which is tariffs, the side you describe then balances out the more expensive import costs from the tariffs and the cheaper goods we will export that will be cheaper once the other countries lower their tariffs in order to get more access to our markets.

Ends up somewhere in the middle, with less trade imbalances, and I'm guessing a lower trade deficit.

If the tariffs are imposed by both sides (theirs in retaliation to ours), our imports will be lower but our exports will be lower as well. The trade deficit may not shrink at all but total trade will be lower- meaning fewer jobs on both sides.

But let's look at the original reason for the tariffs- a trade deficit. Is a trade deficit necessarily a bad thing? Is a country in a bad position if they are importing more than they export? If we are richer than our trading partners, we may have a larger demand for imported goods than our trading partners. They might not be able to afford as many imports as we can. In this case, the deficit exists because we are so much better off than anybody else.

If we have to import because we are resource poor and are unable to produce what we need, then it is not a good thing. Are we resource poor and unable to produce what we need?

[r3volution 3.0]

They'll make more money, hire more workers, give them better pay

The same could be achieved by taxing consumers and giving the money to the steel producers.

...o wait, that's what this is.

In short, yes, welfare schemes work nicely from the perspective of the welfare recipients (at least in the short term).

[Superfluous Man]

To replace the income tax you need about a 200% tariff on all imports.

It wouldn't work. People would just spend less money buying imports at those higher prices. There is no possible way that tariffs could ever produce as much revenue as the income tax.

And that right there is probably the only argument in favor of replacing the income tax with tariffs that actually makes sense.

[Superfluous Man]

Assuming that the company doesn't just pocket the higher profits.

https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corporate-profits-and-wages.jpg


Notice the difference in scale between the left side and the right. It's a very deceptive graph.

[phill4paul]

Assuming that the company doesn't just pocket the higher profits.



The companies needing steel and aluminum (vastly more than steel and aluminum producers- the steel industry has about 80,000 workers- metal using company workers are in the millions) will face higher costs and will raise prices of what they produce and hire fewer workers or pay the ones they have less. The steel factory gains but the rest lose. It is a net loss to the overall economy. And if the countries facing our tariffs decide to retaliate, more US companies will be hurt.


Assuming that the company doesn't just pocket the higher profits.

The companies needing steel and aluminum (vastly more than steel and aluminum producers- the steel industry has about 80,000 workers- metal using company workers are in the millions) will face higher costs and will raise prices of what they produce and hire fewer workers or pay the ones they have less. The steel factory gains but the rest lose. It is a net loss to the overall economy. And if the countries facing our tariffs decide to retaliate, more US companies will be hurt.

Until American steel-works cranks up again. And it would. It will take awhile to adjust to being a producing nation again as opposed to a consuming nation. Perhaps once again we will get products such as appliances that last longer than 5 years. Perhaps American manufacturers won't have to worry about foreign governments subsidizing their manufacturing base for the sole purpose of destroying America's. God, that would be absolutely terrible. :rolleyes:


The American bauxite industry held world importance during World War I, and from 1914 through 1920, supplied more than half the world's bauxite. In 1914 and again in 1915, the US supplied 94 percent of the world's bauxite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauxite_mining_in_the_United_States


US iron ore made up more than a third of the world's iron ore production; the proportion of world iron ore mined in the US peaked in 1945 at 56 percent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_mining_in_the_United_States

We have it. We just have to mine it.

And what you fail to mention is that we run a trade deficit. Which means other countries sell us more than we buy from them. So if we don't buy it from them then American manufacturing sells it here. Their output is increased through domestic sales because there is not unfair trade practices involved which favor foreign manufacturing.

I watched a prosperous middle-class disappear in my lifetime because of globalization. Furniture manufacturing in N.C. It was no different from steel towns. A complete middle-class destroyed.

[r3volution 3.0]

Is a trade deficit necessarily a bad thing? Is a country in a bad position if they are importing more than they export? If we are richer than our trading partners, we may have a larger demand for imported goods than our trading partners. They might not be able to afford as many imports as we can. In this case, the deficit exists because we are so much better off than anybody else.

Trade imbalances occur constantly in a free market; any person, business, or arbitrarily selected group of the same (such as "Americans" or "Chinese") may run a trade imbalance with respect to any other person, business, or arbitrarily selected group of the same by consuming more than they produce (financing the difference by borrowing) or by producing more than they consume (the difference being savings). There is no problem with this.

Chronic trade imbalances are a different matter. These are impossible in a free market. One cannot indefinitely consume more than he produces (there are limits to borrowing), and though one could run an indefinite trade surplus (just keep saving forever and never spend your savings), this is irrational. In a free market, trade imbalances are self-correcting. Chronic trade deficits are a result of inflationary monetary policy, which makes it possible to keep borrowing indefinitely (or at least for a very long time) to finance excess consumption. The US started experiencing trade deficits because production costs were increasing relative the rest of the world. Those deficits failed to self-correct and became chronic because US monetary policy made it easy to finance consumption with debt.

So, basically, trade imbalances aren't a problem in themselves; it depends what's causing them.

...and tariffs are no solution in any case, needless to say.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/09/world/steels-decline-was-about-technology-not-trade-0


Steel's decline was about technology, not trade

“American steel,” Donald Trump intoned while laying out his economic plan in Detroit yesterday. “Steel! American steel! We'll send new skyscrapers soaring all over our country. We will put new American metal into the spine of this nation.”

Trump said he would “put our coal miners and our steel workers back to work!”

The candidate suggested that trade deals and regulation had cost the United States hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing industries like auto, steel and coal. And he suggested that doing away with both would bring those jobs back.

But a look at recent research on the U.S. steel industry shows that when it comes to the decline of American steel industry jobs, globalization and regulation had very little to do with it.

In the four decades beginning in the early 1960s, the steel sector lost 400,000 jobs — a five-fold drop, according to Allan Collard-Wexler, assistant professor at Duke, who examined the history of the industry using detailed census data.

Initially, “we thought this was going to be all about trade,” he said. He was in for a surprise.

Even though jobs disappeared, actual steel output declined by a small amount, roughly 20 percent — nowhere near accounting for the loss in jobs. Steel production wasn’t leaving the United States as much as it was just requiring fewer workers.

“It was increases in the productivity of the steel industry that are generating this huge drop in employment,” said Collard-Wexler.

Specifically, something came along called the minimill – essentially a process for recycling scrap steel and turning it into higher quality steel.

It was more efficient and cheaper. “Recycling steel is a less-intensive process than smelting it from scratch,” he said.

This innovation drove a lot of steel mills out of business. Specifically, the least productive and least efficient mills. The old mills that remained in business were the ones that could produce the highest quality grades of steel.

At the same time, Collard-Wexler said, wages for the remaining steel workers rose significantly. “Steel workers today are much better paid than they were in the past.”

For Margaret McMillan, the story of American steel is a symbol of what has happened throughout the manufacturing economy. “Technology has played a huge role in changes in the manufacturing sector and in other industries as well,” she said. “It’s added value to the economy, consumer goods prices are lower because of technological progress.”

There are sectors that have lost jobs due to trade – textiles for example – and many economists believe growth in Chinese manufacturing in the early 2000s also cost U.S. jobs (though many are skeptical as to whether that damage is ongoing today). But the whole story can’t be told without technology.



US produces over 80 million metric tons and imports about 30 million a year. Only about three percent of our imported steel comes from China- who is our big trade deficit partner. Steel tariffs won't effect our trade deficit with China and won't create more jobs here.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-factbox/factbox-top-steel-exporters-to-the-united-states-idUSKCN1GE10I


Following are the top steel exporters to the United States with their corresponding percentage of total U.S. steel imports:

1. Canada 16.7 percent

2. Brazil 13.2 percent

3. South Korea 9.7 percent

4. Mexico 9.4 percent

5. Russia 8.1 percent

6. Turkey 5.6 percent

7. Japan 4.9 percent

8. Germany 3.7 percent

9. Taiwan 3.2 percent

10. China 2.9 percent

The US trade deficit with China is almost $385 billion. Steel accounts for about $2 billion of that.

[dannno]

If the tariffs are imposed by both sides (theirs in retaliation to ours), our imports will be lower but our exports will be lower as well. The trade deficit may not shrink at all but total trade will be lower- meaning fewer jobs on both sides.

But let's look at the original reason for the tariffs- a trade deficit. Is a trade deficit necessarily a bad thing? Is a country in a bad position if they are importing more than they export? If we are richer than our trading partners, we may have a larger demand for imported goods than our trading partners. They might not be able to afford as many imports as we can. In this case, the deficit exists because we are so much better off than anybody else.

If we have to import because we are resource poor and are unable to produce what we need, then it is not a good thing. Are we resource poor and unable to produce what we need?

Your retaliation theory is missing half my argument... the other side already has big tariffs and we have refused to do anything to stop that so they just continue increasing them. This will bring them to the table because they want to continue to export and so they may reasonably agree to lower their tariffs, and we may reasonably agree to lower ours. That is the whole point.

[phill4paul]

https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/09/world/steels-decline-was-about-technology-not-trade-0



US produces over 80 million metric tons and imports about 30 million a year. Only about three percent of our imported steel comes from China- who is our big trade deficit partner. Steel tariffs won't effect our trade deficit with China and won't create more jobs here.

:rolleyes: Steel isn't the only tarriffs imposed so far. There's solar panels and large tub washing machines. And hopefully much more to come.


The U.S. trade deficit with China was $375 billion in 2017. The trade deficit exists because U.S. exports to China were only $130 billion while imports from China were $506 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-china-trade-deficit-causes-effects-and-solutions-3306277

[axiomata]

“Government, begotten of aggression and by aggression, ever continues to betray its original nature by its aggressiveness.”

“We let ourselves be deceived by words and phrases which suggest one aspect of the facts while leaving the opposite aspect unsuggested…so-called protection always involves aggression…the name aggressionist ought to be substituted for the name protectionist. For nothing can be more certain than that if, to maintain A’s profit, B is forbidden to buy of C, or is fined to the extent of the duty if he buys of C, then B is aggressed upon that A may be ‘protected.’ Nay, ‘aggressionists’ is a title doubly more applicable…since, that one producer may gain, ten consumers are fleeced.”

“The like confusion of ideas…may be traced throughout all the legislation which forcibly takes the property of this man for the purpose of giving gratis benefits to that man.”

“No defense can be made for this appropriation of A’s possessions for the benefit of B, save one which sets out with the postulate that society as a whole has an absolute right over the possessions of each member.”

https://fee.org/articles/herbert-spencer-was-right-protectionism-is-really-aggression-ism/

[Zippyjuan]

:rolleyes: Steel isn't the only tarriffs imposed so far. There's solar panels and large tub washing machines. And hopefully much more to come.


The U.S. trade deficit with China was $375 billion in 2017. The trade deficit exists because U.S. exports to China were only $130 billion while imports from China were $506 billion.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-china-trade-deficit-causes-effects-and-solutions-3306277

Steel accounts for less than $2 billion of that deficit (one half of one percent). Even if we cut 100% of imports of steel from China, it would have little impact on the trade deficit.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[phill4paul]

Steel accounts for less than $2 billion of that deficit. Even if we cut 100% of imports of steel from China, it would have little impact on the trade deficit.

Gotta start somewhere. And it's not all about the China. It's the fact that we are the largest importer of steel in the world. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

[axiomata]

Notice the difference in scale between the left side and the right. It's a very deceptive graph.

That's not the only reason that chart is meaningless. It doesn't include employee benefits, which due to the rising cost of healthcare and the tax advantaged properties of non wage compensation, have been increasing.

Also meaningless to make GDP the denominator in stead of national income.

Edit: link saying essentially the same thing
https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/09/myth-corporate-profits-matt-palumbo/

[Zippyjuan]

Gotta start somewhere. And it's not all about the China. It's the fact that we are the largest importer of steel in the world. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

Of course- we are also the largest economy in the world.

The US trading partner this would most effect is Canada- our biggest trading partner (not counting services we have $582 billion in trade with Canada and $535 billion with China)- and we are about even in our trade balance with them.

https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264

[Swordsmyth]

Of course- we are also the largest economy in the world.

The US trading partner this would most effect is Canada- our biggest trading partner next to China- and we are about even in our trade balance with them.

LOL

[Superfluous Man]

LOL

Looks like he's right.

Canada is currently our 2nd largest goods trading partner with $544.0 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2016. Goods exports totaled $266.0 billion; goods imports totaled $278.1 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $12.1 billion in 2016.
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

Out of $582 billion in trade with Canada, our trade deficit with then is $18 billion. Figures for 2017. Link in previous post.


https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264


The United States could make almost everything it needs. But some countries can make products just as well for a lower price. It makes more sense to pay less for these goods. The savings are then invested in the industries America does best.

For other products, America has an advantage. These are agricultural products and industrial supplies like organic chemicals. They also include capital goods like transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, and telecommunications equipment.

The United States runs a deficit with countries who fit at least one of the following three criteria.

They can produce things more cheaply than the United States can, such as consumer products or oil. That is changing with U.S. production of shale oil.

They don't need what America is good at making.

They trade a lot of everything with the United States, but America imports more than it exports.

Most of the trading partners that the United States has deficits with fall into the first two categories. The two largest are China and Japan. Some of the largest deficits are with countries in the last category.


They include Canada, Mexico and Germany.

That's why the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits in goods are not always its most important trading partners. Some nations export a lot without importing much. But the top five trading partners also have the largest deficits. Please note that the Census provides trade data by country for goods only, not services.

China - $535 billion traded with a $375 billion deficit.
Canada - $582 billion traded with a $18 billion deficit.
Mexico - $557 billion traded with a $71 billion deficit.
Japan - $204 billion traded with a $69 billion deficit.
Germany - $171 billion traded with a $65 billion deficit.
The Largest U.S. Deficit Is With China

More than 65 percent of the U.S. trade deficit in goods was with China. The $375 billion deficit with China was created by $505 billion in imports. The main Chinese imports are consumer electronics, clothing, and machinery. America only exported $130 billion in goods to China.

Note that many of the imports are sold by American companies that ship raw materials to be assembled for a lower cost in China. They are counted as imports even though they create income and profit for these U.S. companies.

[Swordsmyth]

Out of $582 billion in trade with Canada, our trade deficit with then is $18 billion. Link in previous post.

After re-reading your post I see that you are only talking about Canada, when I read it the first time I thought you meant China as well.

[phill4paul]

Of course- we are also the largest economy in the world.

The US trading partner this would most effect is Canada- our biggest trading partner (not counting services we have $582 billion in trade with Canada and $535 billion with China)- and we are about even in our trade balance with them.

https://www.thebalance.com/trade-deficit-by-county-3306264

$18 billion deficit is "about even." Hmmm.... It's funny that in our NAFTA agreements with Canada and Mexico we are the ones running a deficit. $71 billion with Mexico. Between the two of them about a trillion. But, hey, that's close. :rolleyes:

[Pauls' Revere]

So, I should get more for my money when I recycle cans for cash $ per/pound should go up.

[oyarde]

So, I should get more for my money when I recycle cans for cash $ per/pound should go up.

I do not think prices will move much on raw matl.'s . I do not expect demand to grow . It takes a booming economy to move copper , aluminum , steel much , not some crappy 1 or 2 percent growth govt numbers that have been the norm since the crash . I expect things to remain the same until the next crash . So far I have been right for nearly a decade now .

[kcchiefs6465]

$18 billion deficit is "about even." Hmmm.... It's funny that in our NAFTA agreements with Canada and Mexico we are the ones running a deficit. $71 billion with Mexico. Between the two of them about a trillion. But, hey, that's close. :rolleyes:
It is sophistic to assume that in transactions there must be winners and losers.

Except for the fact that by exporting our worth piss printed fiat for actual assets, they are getting the shaft. Until the piper is called and even then, with the military capability of the United States, a simple 'meh' is going to have to do for our creditors.

How people get the idea that cheap shit from China makes America poorer I'll never understand.

[Zippyjuan]

$18 billion deficit is "about even." Hmmm.... It's funny that in our NAFTA agreements with Canada and Mexico we are the ones running a deficit. $71 billion with Mexico. Between the two of them about a trillion. But, hey, that's close. :rolleyes:

$18 billion on half a $trillion in trade is indeed a small amount.

[phill4paul]

How people get the idea that cheap shit from China makes America poorer I'll never understand.

Maybe because burger flipping for cheap shit from China that needs to be replaced every 2 yrs. isn't the best way to go?

[Jan2017]

Looks like he's right.

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

Very rare air for Zippy Group to be saying something/writing something valid.
It happens once in an eon . . .

Zips will now promote this thread - and avoid other threads he's under the gun,
and btw . . . please be sure to donate to his money fund - to keep the Zipsh!t coming out his orifices - LOL

[Zippyjuan]

Trump tweet threatens to escalate tariff war:


Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More

If the E.U. wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on U.S. companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S. They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969994273121820672

[kcchiefs6465]

Maybe because burger flipping for cheap shit from China that needs to be replaced every 2 yrs. isn't the best way to go?
They could burger flip their way to an innovative design, maybe capitalize on it and improve the overall wealth of all.

Oh I forgot. They have no skills, work ethic, and whine too goddamn much.

[timosman]

They have no skills, work ethic, and whine too goddamn much.

Like any of this is of importance when it comes to deciding how much of the pie they are going to get. :cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump tweet threatens to escalate tariff war:

"If the E.U. wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on U.S. companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S. They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!"

You know what's a good way to make American cars more competitive in Europe?

Raise their inputs costs.

Genius, I tells ya!

[Zippyjuan]

You know what's a good way to make American cars more competitive in Europe?

Raise their inputs costs.

Genius, I tells ya!

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/2/17072268/wilbur-ross-tariff-steel-big-deal


Trump’s commerce secretary: tariffs raising car prices $175 is “trivial”

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross defended President Donald Trump’s plan to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum with a can of Campbell soup, a Budweiser tallboy, and some basic arithmetic.

“In a can of Campbell’s Soup, there are about 2.6 pennies’ worth of steel,” Ross argued, holding up a can of soup on CNBC. “So if that goes up by 25 percent, that’s about six-tenths of 1 cent on the price on a can of Campbell’s soup. I just bought this can today at a 7-Eleven ... and it’s priced at a $1.99. Who in the world is going to be too bothered?”

Ross is responding to widespread criticism that Trump’s announcement to place a 25 percent import tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum would likely lead to a trade war, raise prices for American businesses that buy steel and aluminum, and in turn increase prices for consumers.

Republican governors, senators, and representatives have all come out against the plan — even Trump’s chief economic adviser Gary Cohn is against it. Among its supporters are trade hawks like White House adviser Peter Navarro and some Rust Belt Democrats, including Sens. Sherrod Brown (OH) and Bob Casey (PA).

But Ross argued that any consumer price increases would be negligible and have “a trivial effect” on consumers.

He went on to give another example:

“There’s about one ton of steel in a car,” Ross said on CNN. “The price of a ton of steel is $700 or so, so 25 percent on that would be one half of 1 percent price increase on the typical $35,000 car. So it’s no big deal.”

In his estimate, that would amount to a roughly $175 price increase on a car.

[Jan2017]

Zips will now promote this thread - and avoid other threads he's under the gun, . . .
.
Help me keep posting. Please donate here: http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh
.

[phill4paul]

They could burger flip their way to an innovative design, maybe capitalize on it and improve the overall wealth of all.

Oh I forgot. They have no skills, work ethic, and whine too goddamn much.

Most all can acquire skills and a work ethic. Are you insinuating that, somehow, individuals are being held back by working blue collar jobs? Do you believe that every one of these individuals would go out and invent something, patent it and become millionaires because of these jobs? Without a middle-class, blue collar workers, or at least the illusion that a man can simply work hard and get ahead, you'll get what we have now. Ain't now wonderful?

[kcchiefs6465]

Most all can acquire skills and a work ethic. Are you insinuating that, somehow, individuals are being held back by working blue collar jobs? Do you believe that every one of these individuals would go out and invent something, patent it and become millionaires because of these jobs? Without a middle-class, blue collar workers, or at least the illusion that a man can simply work hard and get ahead, you'll get what we have now. Ain't now wonderful?
I'm saying that the ignorant, lazy, and self-entitled are largely to blame for what we have now.

Anyone with motivation and time can master what they choose (obviously within their own natural limitations).

You can't fail before you quit and they started off with the wrong mentality. It is them, themselves, that are keeping them down. Not cheap Chinese products. Couple that with artificially cheap credit and it's not hard to see what's happened in America.

[phill4paul]

I'm saying that the ignorant, lazy, and self-entitled are largely to blame for what we have now.

Anyone with motivation and time can master what they choose (obviously within their own natural limitations).

You can't fail before you quit and they started off with the wrong mentality. It is them, themselves, that are keeping them down. Not cheap Chinese products. Couple that with artificially cheap credit and it's not hard to see what's happened in America.

So you believe that individuals that work as employees in manufacturing are ignorant, lazy and self-entitled? You know it is that kind of CONTEMPT that is bullshit. This idea of yours that everyone is capable of starting their own company and so fuck anyone that can't, is the EXACT same mentality as those that say manufacturing is gone, get a better education, go into debt. Without a middle class there is socialism, communism, all the -isms. In America working middle-class Americans have been replaced by middle-class government functionaries. Who damn well aren't gonna rant and rave that they actually do not PRODUCE something. I'll take the blue collar worker middle class over most all the fail that is apparent today. But, please, keep encouraging socialism by adhering to the belief that everyone is capable of creating their own niche. and when that fails, well, there is always the government safety net. Just another government recipient.

[axiomata]

https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0

03/02/2018The Editors
The Trump administration has announced it plans to raise taxes on Americans in the form of tariffs. On Thursday, the president promised steel and aluminum executives that he would protect them against foreign competition by levying tariffs on both metals in the coming weeks: 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. The effect of tariffs will be to impose a higher tax burden on Americans, while increasing the cost of living, and the costs imposed on entrepreneurs using the taxed materials.

For centuries, economists have examined and explained the negative consequences of tariffs. And for more than a century, the economists of the Austrian school have added even more sophisticated and modern arguments against tariffs.

Thus, on the matter of tariffs, there is no need to re-invent the wheel.

After all, Henry Hazlitt in his seminal Economics in One Lesson covered the topic well:

Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees,the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

It is important to notice that the new tariff on sweaters would not raise American wages. To be sure, it would enable Americans to work in the sweater industry at approximately the average level of American wages (for workers of their skill), instead of having to compete in that industry at the British level of wages. But there would be no increase of American wages in general as a result of the duty; for, as we have seen, there would be no net increase in the number of jobs provided, no net increase in the demand for goods, and no increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity would, in fact, be reduced as a result of the tariff.

And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages. Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles.

Hazlitt, of course, was a student of Ludwig von Mises, and developed many of Mises's views. Writing on Mises's essays in Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, David Gordon sums up Mises's view:

Tariffs, and similar measures designed to strengthen the nation, "should not be considered as measures of production policy." They aid some citizens at the expense of others; they do not help the economy as a whole. "One might differ as to the advisability of protecting the Prussian Junkers by a tariff on grain imports against the competition of the Canadian farmers who are producing on more fertile soil. But if we advocate a tariff to protect Prussian grain producers, we are not recommending a measure in favor of the production of the supply of grain, but a measure designed to assist the owners of German land at the expense of the German grain consumers. It will never be possible to base an economic system on such assistance privileges,"

Mises here completely explodes the nationalist argument for protective tariffs. Since these measures do not benefit the totality of the nation, they cannot be unambiguously endorsed from a nationalist point of view. Commitment to free trade, then, need not rest on utopian commitment to internationalism, as some suppose. Given the goal of nationalism, protection does not follow.

But does not the tariff supporter have here a counter to deploy against Mises? He may grant Mises's point: a tariff will benefit some citizens at the expense of others. Nevertheless, he may say, the national interest dictates that the tariff be instituted. Aid to certain groups, it may be contended, is in the national interest.

Mises appears to concede something to this rejoinder, but his concession does the protectionist little good. "Whether such an expenditure is justified or not is of no concern for economic evaluation. ... There are undoubtedly cases in which restrictive measures appear justified to most or all of our citizens. But all restrictive measures are fundamentally expenditures. They diminish the supply of productive means available for the supply of other goods."

Mises's "admission" is in fact a devastating counterargument. Tariffs are never defended by their proponents on the grounds that they privilege some at the expense of others within a nation. Quite the contrary, they are alleged to benefit the nation at the expense of foreigners. Absent an account of the national interest with explicit arguments that justify largesse for special interests, the nationalist defense for tariffs fails utterly.

Naturally, Murray Rothbard came to similar conclusions, although he perhaps stated them even more emphatically:

[P]rotectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world ofself,sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade-such as protectionism-cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of inefficient producers, at the expense of competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

The verdict of sound economics is universal as to tariffs. They cripple economies, reduce the standard of living, and pit some groups against others while offering no advantages for the economy as a whole:

More at link

[nikcers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soCzGQGt2jY

[kcchiefs6465]

So you believe that individuals that work as employees in manufacturing are ignorant, lazy and self-entitled? You know it is that kind of CONTEMPT that is bullshit. This idea of yours that everyone is capable of starting their own company and so fuck anyone that can't, is the EXACT same mentality as those that say manufacturing is gone, get a better education, go into debt. Without a middle class there is socialism, communism, all the -isms. In America working middle-class Americans have been replaced by middle-class government functionaries. Who damn well aren't gonna rant and rave that they actually do not PRODUCE something. I'll take the blue collar worker middle class over most all the fail that is apparent today. But, please, keep encouraging socialism by adhering to the belief that everyone is capable of creating their own niche. and when that fails, well, there is always the government safety net. Just another government recipient.
I made myself clearer than what you are attempting to misrepresent.

If the middle class wants to expand, they should probably reconsider voting for Trump, Hillary etc.

They should probably quit ignorantly clamoring for tariffs.

They could probably, I don't know, read a damn book.

You get too worked up arguing to help people who want help, yet can't be bothered to do even basic research into the authoritarian of the season they are worshipping.

[Danke]

https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0

03/02/2018The Editors
The Trump administration has announced it plans to raise taxes on Americans in the form of tariffs. On Thursday, the president promised steel and aluminum executives that he would protect them against foreign competition by levying tariffs on both metals in the coming weeks: 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum. The effect of tariffs will be to impose a higher tax burden on Americans, while increasing the cost of living, and the costs imposed on entrepreneurs using the taxed materials.

For centuries, economists have examined and explained the negative consequences of tariffs. And for more than a century, the economists of the Austrian school have added even more sophisticated and modern arguments against tariffs.

Thus, on the matter of tariffs, there is no need to re-invent the wheel.

After all, Henry Hazlitt in his seminal Economics in One Lesson covered the topic well:

Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.

There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.

Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country’s industry or the country’s employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.

But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees,the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been—precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost—because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.

It is important to notice that the new tariff on sweaters would not raise American wages. To be sure, it would enable Americans to work in the sweater industry at approximately the average level of American wages (for workers of their skill), instead of having to compete in that industry at the British level of wages. But there would be no increase of American wages in general as a result of the duty; for, as we have seen, there would be no net increase in the number of jobs provided, no net increase in the demand for goods, and no increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity would, in fact, be reduced as a result of the tariff.

And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages. Let us observe more clearly how it does this. We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles.

Hazlitt, of course, was a student of Ludwig von Mises, and developed many of Mises's views. Writing on Mises's essays in Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, David Gordon sums up Mises's view:

Tariffs, and similar measures designed to strengthen the nation, "should not be considered as measures of production policy." They aid some citizens at the expense of others; they do not help the economy as a whole. "One might differ as to the advisability of protecting the Prussian Junkers by a tariff on grain imports against the competition of the Canadian farmers who are producing on more fertile soil. But if we advocate a tariff to protect Prussian grain producers, we are not recommending a measure in favor of the production of the supply of grain, but a measure designed to assist the owners of German land at the expense of the German grain consumers. It will never be possible to base an economic system on such assistance privileges,"

Mises here completely explodes the nationalist argument for protective tariffs. Since these measures do not benefit the totality of the nation, they cannot be unambiguously endorsed from a nationalist point of view. Commitment to free trade, then, need not rest on utopian commitment to internationalism, as some suppose. Given the goal of nationalism, protection does not follow.

But does not the tariff supporter have here a counter to deploy against Mises? He may grant Mises's point: a tariff will benefit some citizens at the expense of others. Nevertheless, he may say, the national interest dictates that the tariff be instituted. Aid to certain groups, it may be contended, is in the national interest.

Mises appears to concede something to this rejoinder, but his concession does the protectionist little good. "Whether such an expenditure is justified or not is of no concern for economic evaluation. ... There are undoubtedly cases in which restrictive measures appear justified to most or all of our citizens. But all restrictive measures are fundamentally expenditures. They diminish the supply of productive means available for the supply of other goods."

Mises's "admission" is in fact a devastating counterargument. Tariffs are never defended by their proponents on the grounds that they privilege some at the expense of others within a nation. Quite the contrary, they are alleged to benefit the nation at the expense of foreigners. Absent an account of the national interest with explicit arguments that justify largesse for special interests, the nationalist defense for tariffs fails utterly.

Naturally, Murray Rothbard came to similar conclusions, although he perhaps stated them even more emphatically:

[P]rotectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world ofself,sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade-such as protectionism-cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of inefficient producers, at the expense of competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

The verdict of sound economics is universal as to tariffs. They cripple economies, reduce the standard of living, and pit some groups against others while offering no advantages for the economy as a whole:

More at link


raise revenue via tariffs not income taxes, net plus for Americans.

[nikcers]

raise revenue via tariffs not income taxes, net plus for Americans.
The government is a Rube Goldberg machine anything they do to the market to make it "fair" is a broken window fallacy and has unintended negative consequences seen or unseen.

[Danke]

The government is a Rube Goldberg machine anything they do to the market to make it "fair" is a broken window fallacy and has unintended negative consequences seen or unseen.


nothing about making it fair. Just across the board tariffs to fund federal government and eliminate federal income taxes.

[nikcers]

nothing about making it fair. Just across the board tariffs to fund federal government and eliminate federal income taxes.
Taxes to fund government are okay if government is funded properly but government isn't funded properly and we monetize the debt to fund government.

[Zippyjuan]

raise revenue via tariffs not income taxes, net plus for Americans.

You still pay the tax- it just get added to the prices of things you buy. You aren't avoiding taxation. (and those higher prices means people can afford to buy fewer things so the makers of those things cut workers since they are not selling as much).

To fund at current spending levels you need a 200% tax on everything imported. Of course such a tariff would mean imports drop requiring an even higher tax rate. Countries retaliate with huge tariffs on our goods so our own exporters are driven out of business.

[timosman]

You still pay the tax- it just get added to the prices of things you buy. You aren't avoiding taxation. (and those higher prices means people can afford to buy fewer things so the makers of those things cut workers since they are not selling as much).

To fund at current spending levels you need a 200% tax on everything imported. Of course such a tariff would mean imports drop requiring an even higher tax rate. Countries retaliate with huge tariffs on our goods so our own exporters are driven out of business.

It is not 200%, more like 100%.

[acptulsa]

You still pay the tax- it just get added to the prices of things you buy. You aren't avoiding taxation. (and those higher prices means people can afford to buy fewer things so the makers of those things cut workers since they are not selling as much).

If the amount extorted is the same, Zippy, it's a zero sum game, right? So that means imports cost more, but you have more money because none was stole out of your paycheck, right? So the only things people cannot afford are the imported things, and that has no effect on American makers of things and the American workers they employ, right?

Right?

Or is it not as simple as you are pretending it is?

[Danke]

You still pay the tax- it just get added to the prices of things you buy. You aren't avoiding taxation. (and those higher prices means people can afford to buy fewer things so the makers of those things cut workers since they are not selling as much).

To fund at current spending levels you need a 200% tax on everything imported. Of course such a tariff would mean imports drop requiring an even higher tax rate. Countries retaliate with huge tariffs on our goods so our own exporters are driven out of business.


gee, keeping over 40% of my income vs. paying a consumption tax, hmmm...let me think about that...

[nikcers]

gee, keeping over 40% of my income vs. paying a consumption tax, hmmm...let me think about that...
Unless your income is inflated to keep the price of consumables down and you can't really change tax burdens because spending is the real tax when you don't fund government.

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump's claiming legal authority to implement these tariffs under a national security statute. Unless the language of the statute is extraordinarily broad (don't know, haven't read it), I expect it would be fairly easy to prove that this tariff has nothing to do with national security, and that the tariff is therefore illegal (or atleast they'd have to come up with some other legal basis for it).

So, question: who would have standing to sue on this issue?

A Senator from Kentucky or Utah, perhaps?

P.S. Welp, nevermind. I just read the statute (section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962) and it basically allows the POTUS to do whatever he wants provided he claims it's in the interest of national security (which term is not defined, the definition being whatever the POTUS says it is, evidently). So, there appears to be no basis for a suit, regardless of standing issues.

[Zippyjuan]

If the amount extorted is the same, Zippy, it's a zero sum game, right? So that means imports cost more, but you have more money because none was stole out of your paycheck, right? So the only things people cannot afford are the imported things, and that has no effect on American makers of things and the American workers they employ, right?

Right?

Or is it not as simple as you are pretending it is?

It will mean lower taxes for those at higher incomes and higher costs for those at lower incomes since those at the upper end don't spend nearly as high a percent of their income on goods and services. If domestic produces followed the tariff prices, then the prices for goods could double or more. Those at the lower end currently pay little to no income taxes so their paychecks would not go up by getting rid of the income tax (about half of all income tax filers owed no net income taxes). That would lead to much lower consumption and fewer workers needed to produce goods.


has no effect on American makers of things and the American workers they employ, right?

Not true. First, as mentioned, our tariffs would not be in a vacuum. Other countries would respond with tariffs on US goods. That means we would sell fewer exports. Exporting companies would be hurt. And as also explained, the higher costs of goods (with the effect of tariffs) would mean people can afford fewer goods- lower demand, fewer workers needed.

[Zippyjuan]

gee, keeping over 40% of my income vs. paying a consumption tax, hmmm...let me think about that...

If you are paying 40% income tax, you must have a high income. (the top bracket is 37% on incomes over $500,000). Half of all income tax filers owe zero net income taxes. They don't get a tax break but are hit with much higher prices.

[acptulsa]

It will mean lower taxes for those at higher incomes and higher costs for those at lower incomes since those at the upper end don't spend nearly as high a percent of their income on goods and services.

And if they reinvest their money in new domestic industries taking advantage of new markets for various domestic goods, we'll be glad they have money to reinvest.


If domestic produces followed the tariff prices, then the prices for goods could double or more.

Domestic producers will clearly only raise prices as much as the market will bear. And unless the tariff is some odd 150% of what the foreign product is selling for, clearly you're full of something brown and stinky.


Those at the lower end currently pay little to no income taxes so their paychecks would not go up by getting rid of the income tax (about half of all income tax filers owed no net income taxes).

Unless, of course, the new businesses creating domestic products (that were mostly or exclusively imported before) compete well for their labor.


That would lead to much lower consumption and fewer workers needed to produce goods.

Even if consumption were lower, as it likely would be, that does not mean fewer workers would be needed domestically.


Not true. First, as mentioned, our tariffs would not be in a vacuum. Other countries would respond with tariffs on US goods. That means we would sell fewer exports. Exporting companies would be hurt. And as also explained, the higher costs of goods (with the effect of tariffs) would mean people can afford fewer goods- lower demand, fewer workers needed.

Maybe. But the U.S. market is traditionally the largest in the world in many--most--the overwhelming majority of--areas. So it doesn't necessarily follow that the loss of little foreign markets would be a net loss if the huge domestic market is gained.

There's definitely a case to be made for free trade. You are not making it. You aren't making any credible case for anything.

[Zippyjuan]

Even if consumption were lower, as it likely would be, that does not mean fewer workers would be needed domestically.

If consumption is lower (which means they sell fewer goods) are they going to be hiring more people to produce what they are selling less of? If they don't cut total workers, they will at least reduce the hours of the workers they currently have. That means they now have less money to spend on things and consumption drops more.

[acptulsa]

If consumption is lower (which means they sell fewer goods) are they going to be hiring more people to produce what they are selling less of? If they don't cut total workers, they will at least reduce the hours of the workers they currently have. That means they now have less money to spend on things and consumption drops more.

If consumption is lower, does that mean consumption of domestic goods cannot be higher? Why are you deliberately blurring the lines between American workers and workers the world over?

And you certainly aren't making the case why we need our income taxed all to hell and back for Washington's bad habits of wasting money and bombing brown people.

[Zippyjuan]

If consumption is lower, does that mean consumption of domestic goods cannot be higher? Why are you deliberately blurring the lines between American workers and workers the world over?

And you certainly aren't making the case why we need our income taxed all to hell and back for Washington's bad habits of wasting money and bombing brown people.

They are going to do that no matter what way you would rather give them your money- via income taxation or by higher prices (taxes in the price of what you buy).

Production is only one part of our economy. Lower consumption also hits those who supply parts or resources to the producers as well as those who distribute and sell those goods. Lower consumption hits all those jobs.

[acptulsa]

They are going to do that no matter what way you would rather give them your money- via income taxation or by higher prices (taxes in the price of what you buy).

Would they? Or would a change in the type of taxation force them to reevaluate their 'priorities'--or force voters to reevaluate their priorities on Election Day?


Production is only one part of our economy. Lower consumption also hits those who supply parts or resources to the producers as well as those who distribute and sell those goods. Lower consumption hits all those jobs.

And are these suppliers of parts and resources to foreign producers also foreign? Or are you arguing that all foreign producers are exclusively supplied parts and resources by Americans?

Once upon a time, the Federal government managed exclusively on tariff revenues. Can you tell me in detail what has changed to make that impossible? Is it impossible?

Or are you too busy trolling to answer direct questions?

[Danke]

If you are paying 40% income tax, you must have a high income. (the top bracket is 37% on incomes over $500,000). Half of all income tax filers owe zero net income taxes. They don't get a tax break but are hit with much higher prices.

don't forget to add in 15.6% FICA, which is an income tax.

[Zippyjuan]

don't forget to add in 15.6% FICA, which is an income tax.

If you count that, then you are making at least $82,000 a year. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2017/12/17/the-new-2018-federal-income-tax-brackets-rates/#216751f1292a That is in the top 35% of households.

(the tax rate is the marginal rate- the tax rate applied to the last dollar earned- not the "average" rate applied to your whole income- if your total income tax including FICA was 40% you are probably in the Top Ten percent of earners). 24% tax rate only applies to the money you earn over $82,000. Between $38,000 and $82,000 your income would be taxed at 22%. The portion below $38,000 would be taxed at 12%.

[AZJoe]

If Trump really wants to make US steel more competitive, he wouldn't be requesting budget deficits breaking Obama's records and imposing more tariff taxes on American consumers and business. Instead, to really make america competitive, he should end the income tax immediately, and thus make every US industry more competitive - increase competitiveness, lower prices and increase profits and income simultaneously, increase demand, increase demand for labor, increase take home pay, lower unemployment, improve standard of living, free up capital for development, research, investment.

[timosman]

If Trump really wants to make US steel more competitive, he should end the income tax immediately, and make every US industry more competitive - increase competitiveness, lower prices and increase profits and income simultaneously, increase demand, increase demand for labor, increase take home pay, lower unemployment, improve standard of living, free up capital for development, research, investment ...

LOL, you want to go back to the pre 9/11 world. I am afraid it ain't gonna happen. We will fuck with you for the rest of your days.:cool:

[AZJoe]

Canada's Trudeau
970267703809380352

[AZJoe]

969994273121820672

[enhanced_deficit]

A CNBC analyst disrespected POTUS on live cable TV during trade war debate, he opined that markets were happy when headlines were about POTUS lawyer paying off porn stars compared to latest headlines about Trump imposing tariffs (not exact same words).