PDA

View Full Version : Winners & Losers In The Trade War




r3volution 3.0
10-27-2018, 05:55 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/tariff-tracker/


Losers



United Technologies: Expects 5-cent/share headwind this year, offset by price increases, and 15 cents next year. Much of the impact is in imported climate-control and safety equipment like carbon monoxide detectors.
Harley-Davidson: Harley executives said they should be ready by early next year to share plans to mitigate the impact of tariffs that will cost the company as much as $48 million in 2018.
3M Co.: The maker of industrial, safety, health-care and consumer products sees $100 million in ``headwinds’’ from tariffs but has been able to compensate by raising prices. The negative full-year drag of raw-material costs is seen now at 15 cents a share, more than prior range of as much as 10 cents.
Caterpillar: Shares tumbled after the construction equipment maker warned of rising costs. Tariff impact was about $40 million in third quarter; full-year effect is seen at the low-end of the range of $100 million to $200 million.
Polaris: Maker of motorcycles and snow machines said suppliers must help offset tariff costs if they want to keep doing business with Polaris. Left its guidance for 2018 tariff costs unchanged at $40 million.
Tile Shop: The rtile and flooring retailer gets half of its products from Asia and may cut that to 25 percent. Tariffs are a threat to its gross margin target of about 70 percent, especially if the current 10 percent tariff rises to 25 percent in January.
Walmart: The giant retailer said tariffs are a threat to its efforts to be a low-price leader, and while it’s working to monitor margins, it’s possible some prices might rise. One-third of its goods come from outside the U.S.
Panasonic: The Japanese maker of products including solar panels and electric-vehicle batteries may consider moving some production out of China. The U.S.-China trade dispute will have “significant” impact on Panasonic, said Yoshio Ito, the head of its automotive business.
Ford: Ford CEO Jim Hackett said tariffs on metals “took about $1 billion in profit from us.”
BMW: Trade conflicts are “feeding uncertainty,” hurting prices in several markets; sales, profit, margin forecasts cut.
BP: BP sees impact of about $100 million in the U.S. due to increased costs for steel, CEO Bob Dudley said.
Samsonite: Wholesale buyers notified in a letter than a 10 percent price increase is imminent if the U.S. follows through with tariffs on Chinese goods on Sept. 24
Volvo Cars: The Swedish car company, owned by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., delayed a planned IPO amid trade tensions. China’s retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. are disrupting plans to export cars to China from a new factory South Carolina.
Walmart: In a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, Walmart warns that the duties to be imposed Sept. 24 in the U.S. and China will raise prices for consumers and hurt profit margins for retailers and suppliers
Giant Manufacturing: A 10 percent tariff would cost the industry an additional $100 million, and that figure would rise to $250 million if the duty rises to 25 percent, the company told the U.S. Trade Representative in a letter.
Wilmar International: Company says trade tensions between the U.S. and China improved short-term crush margins, contributing to a jump in second-quarter profit. Still, it warned that a prolonged dispute would negatively impact margins due to lower plant utilization.
Yamaha Motor: Sees several hundred million yen in negative impact starting next quarter from U.S. tariffs on Chinese-made engines; sees 1 billion yen impact on U.S.-made boats exported to Canada and Europe starting next summer.
Newell Brands: Maker of Rubbermaid containers, Crock-Pot and Sunbeam appliances, and Graco infant gear estimates $100 million annualized impact
Toyota: Said U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs cut full-year profit outlook by 10 billion yen ($90 million) and that any more levies would hurt its profit and sales outlook; on July 20 its North American chief said carmaker may have to stop importing some vehicles because of proposed U.S. tariffs
Bunge: Posted a surprise loss after a wrong bullish bet on Chicago soybean futures, made on mistaken prediction the trade dispute would be brief and China would return as a buyer
ArcelorMittal: The world’s largest steelmaker trader reported the highest profit in seven years after tariffs on imports boosted prices for production for the company’s U.S. plants
Steve Madden: CEO predicts handbag prices will rise for U.S. consumers and weighs shifting production to Cambodia from China.
Stelco Holdings: Canadian steelmaker pegs cost of tariffs at C$11 million ($8.45 million) in the second quarter
Cummins: Lowered EBITDA forecast in part on expectation of $100 million in tariff-related higher costs in the second half
SunPower: Paid $17 million for tariffs in first half and expects $51 million in second half -- more than it spends on R&D; says it may exit some businesses and cut jobs
Daimler: Cut profit forecast on U.S.-China trade fight
Caterpillar: Will boost prices to offset an expected $100 million to $200 million jump in tariff-related material costs in the second half.
BMW: BMW raised suggested retail prices of its X5 and X6 SUVs in China by 4% to 7%. The carmaker previously warned it wouldn’t be able to absorb China’s tariff increase completely.
Tyson Foods: Cut fiscal 2018 profit forecast to as low as $5.70 a share from range of $6.55-$6.70, citing tariffs’ negative effect on domestic and export prices, mainly for chicken and pork
Eastman Chemical: Put a hold on a five-year effort to sell ethylene plants in Texas as prices fall and China erects barriers
Schneider Electric: Tariffs on imports to the U.S. could affect earnings by as much as $23 million this year.
Hyundai Motor: Company is trying to minimize risks related to the potential U.S. tariff on imported cars and parts, and may increase local production of SUVs. Hyundai previously warned that the tax would be devastating and push up production costs at its Alabama plant by 10% a year.
Fiat Chrysler: Fiat cut profit and revenue targets partly because Maserati buyers delayed purchases due to China’s import duty
General Motors: Cut forecast for year on surging prices for steel and aluminum as tariffs stoke demand. Could be forced to cut U.S. jobs if tariffs are applied to imported vehicles and auto parts.
Ford: Carmaker says it may incur as much as $300 million in extra costs this year due to escalating Chinese tariffs; Ford says it took a $300 million hit in the quarter because of pricier commodities such as steel and aluminum, whose costs have also been inflated by tariffs.
Coca-Cola: Raised prices for soda and other beverages to offset higher costs for freight shipments and metals used in its bottling systems.
Whirlpool: Cites rising cost of raw materials contributing $50 million to $100 million to previous forecast for input-cost increases this year
Hexcel: Aerospace materials supplier expects a tariff impact of $2 million to $3 million on an annual basis related to imports from China.
Harley-Davidson: Cuts profit margin forecast for year. Earlier had announced plans to move production overseas, amid EU tariff costs of $100 million annually
Plains All American Pipeline: Company says tariffs will lead to an additional $40 million in the construction of a pipeline in the largest North American oil field.
Philips: CEO says company will raise prices on products such as hair clippers imported from China if the U.S. imposes tariffs
Illinois Tool Works: Tariffs seen representing about 10 percent to 15 percent of the higher cost of materials in 2018 for the maker of equipment for restaurants, medical labs and oil rigs
Lincoln Electric: Maker of welding equipment and supplies is raising prices on so-called consumables via surcharges instead of permanent hikes because it’s not clear how long tariffs will be in place
Lennox International: Maker of air conditioners forecasts $5 million in costs in 2018 from tariffs and is raising prices to offset the expenses
Stanley Black & Decker: Estimates $35 million impact in 2018 from tariffs already implemented; projects up to $80 million a year in costs from Trump’s proposal for $200 billion additional China tariffs including vacuums, hand tools, power tool accessories. Plans price increases to offset.
General Electric: Sees as much as $400 million a year in impact from current and proposed tariffs, though about half could be offset by credits for exports to China. May adjust supply chain to mitigate effects.
Gentex: Maker of rearview mirrors for cars cut its annual gross margin forecast, citing increased raw material costs of as much as $8 million in the second half linked to imports from China.
Saudi Aramco: Raised prices for butane and propane as Chinese companies are buying more LPG from the Saudi state-run producer and cutting imports from the U.S.
PPG Industries: Maker of coatings for manufacturing, automotive industries says tariffs adding “modest cost” to raw materials, especially for tinplate used for paint cans.
Sonoco: Maker of packaging materials, including pull tabs for canned food, projects as much as $9 million in tariff costs in second half of the year, plans price hike on some products.
Alfa: Owner of processed-foods maker Sigma switched to Canadian, European and South American suppliers from the U.S. to avoid tariff.
Electrolux: Expects $10 million in added second-half costs from parts imported to U.S. and higher steel and aluminum prices.
Alcoa: Cut profit forecast ranges by $500 million, citing tariffs on aluminum it imports from Canada along with higher energy costs and lower market prices
Procter & Gamble: Cites ‘meaningful’ impact of tariffs on a handful of products in Canada, which accounts for 3% of global sales
Kloeckner: Steel trader raises earnings forecast on higher U.S. prices.
Suntory Holdings: The owner of Jim Beam bourbon whiskey, produced in Kentucky, says it must consider raising prices next year if EU tariffs on U.S. products continue.
Osram: Trade tensions will weaken sales of automotive lighting parts
Volvo Cars: Owner Li Shufu says cars will cost more as trade wars escalate
Brown-Forman: Raised Jack Daniel’s prices in light of EU tariffs
MillerCoors: Brewer says profit could fall by $40 million depending on how much aluminum prices rise



Winners



Covanta: U.S. tariffs on imported steel helped raise its revenue forecast for metal it recycles from waste by $10 a ton, to $145-$175.
Nucor: Credits tariff for higher prices and demand, sees more than doubling investments to $1 billion in 2018.
CSX: Rail operator sees positive effect on both steel and ore shipments as U.S. steelmakers add production
Ryerson: Metal processor’s sales guidance exceeds estimates in part because of higher anticipated demand from inventory dislocations tied to tariffs.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 05:58 PM
Winner: Americans

Loser: Globalists

spudea
10-27-2018, 06:10 PM
Almost all of these are "estimates" or guesses about future decisions. Meanwhile corporations are enjoying very real 1 trillion in tax cuts. And why include many non US companies in this list? Volvo is listed twice.... fail.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 06:29 PM
Winner[s]: [A very small handful of politically well-connected] Americans

Loser[s]: Globalists Everyone else.


FIFY

If you really believe the tripe you post, you really should consider learning something about actual economics. Here's a good place to start:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pd f?file=1&type=document

Seeing the kind of economic ignorance you routinely post on a site dedicated to a major champion of the Austrian School is a bit embarrassing.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 06:44 PM
FIFY

If you really believe the tripe you post, you really should consider learning something about actual economics. Here's a good place to start:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pd f?file=1&type=document

Seeing the kind of economic ignorance you routinely post on a site dedicated to a major champion of the Austrian School is a bit embarrassing.

:sleeping:

CaptUSA
10-27-2018, 06:51 PM
Winner: Americans

Loser: Globalists

Moron.

We want global trade. “Globalism” refers to global governance. Not global trade.

Dumbass.


Progressives always trying to confuse terms for the purposes of central control.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 06:55 PM
Moron.

We want global trade. “Globalism” refers to global governance. Not global trade.

Dumbass.


Progressives always trying to confuse terms for the purposes of central control.
Ignoramus.

You want global trade if it is free and fair, current trade arrangements are neither and are designed to facilitate global government.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 06:55 PM
:sleeping:


Take it up with Hazlet. Or Bastiat. Or Mises. Or Hayek. Or Rothbard. Or Ron Paul. You know, the guys who actually knew/know something about economics.

Oh, andcsleeping in class is a poorvway to assimilate knowledge.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 06:58 PM
Take it up with Hazlet. Or Bastiat. Or Mises. Or Hayek. Or Rothbard. Or Ron Paul. You know, the guys who actually knew/know something about economics.

Oh, andcsleeping in class is a poorvway to assimilate knowledge.
You are the one who needs an education about the difference between current managed trade agreements and free trade, I'm so far ahead of you that I can afford to sleep through your drivel.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 07:04 PM
You are the one who needs an education about the difference between current managed trade agreements and free trade, I'm so far ahead of you that I can afford to sleep through your drivel.


Quite the contrary. I'm opposed to those managed trade agreements precisely because they are not true free trade. Unlike yourself however, I'm intelligent enough to realize that the solution to too much government interference with trade is not to engage in even more government interference with trade. Please. Educate yourself. Or just quit spamming your Big Lie bullshit. Whichever applies.

r3volution 3.0
10-27-2018, 07:08 PM
Almost all of these are "estimates" or guesses about future decisions.

Companies aren't in the business of underestimating their own future earnings.

If they publish bad news about themselves, you can be sure that they believe it's true, and they're in the best position to know.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 07:09 PM
Companies aren't in the business of underestimating their own future earnings.



China Pressures Wall Street To Intervene In Trade Fight (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-14/china-pressures-wall-street-intercede-trade-fight)

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 07:11 PM
Quite the contrary. I'm opposed to those managed trade agreements precisely because they are not true free trade. Unlike yourself however, I'm intelligent enough to realize that the solution to too much government interference with trade is not to engage in even more government interference with trade. Please. Educate yourself. Or just quit spamming your Big Lie bull$#@!. Whichever applies.
We can't let everyone else tariff our goods and subsidize theirs or we will become dependent on them for our needs and that will be used to subject us to world government.

The globalists talk about doing that but you are too ignorant to understand.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 07:13 PM
Companies aren't in the business of underestimating their own future earnings.

If they publish bad news about themselves, you can be sure that they believe it's true, and they're in the best position to know.


Come on now man! It makes Trump look bad so it absolutely must be fake news. Or Soros propaganda. Whichever, it simply can't be the truth.

spudea
10-27-2018, 07:13 PM
Quite the contrary. I'm opposed to those managed trade agreements precisely because they are not true free trade. Unlike yourself however, I'm intelligent enough to realize that the solution to too much government interference with trade is not to engage in even more government interference with trade. Please. Educate yourself. Or just quit spamming your Big Lie bull$#@!. Whichever applies.

so smart. All other nations weaponize tariffs against the USA and your response is: Do nothing. So smart. You think China is going to follow Hayak or Mises because you ask them nicely????

I say no, this is part of why we revolted against Britain, they were taxing and tariffing our goods to protect their domestic markets. Mercantilism and protectionism is bad, but when all other nations are using it against us and we do nothing is worse.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 07:28 PM
We can't let everyone else tariff our goods and subsidize theirs or we will become dependent on them for our needs and that will be used to subject us to world government.

The globalists talk about doing that but you are too ignorant to understand.


Sorry, but when most of the greatest minds in economics from the last several hundred years say one thing, and Swordsmyth says the reverse, the smart money is always on those aforementioned great minds. Always. Buy a fucking clue. You're making yourself look foolish.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 07:33 PM
Sorry, but when most of the greatest minds in economics from the last several hundred years say one thing, and Swordsmyth says the reverse, the smart money is always on those aforementioned great minds. Always. Buy a $#@!ing clue. You're making yourself look foolish.
There are plenty of great minds that recommend defending your country against trade warfare.

Your attempt to appeal to authority shows your inability to defend your position.

spudea
10-27-2018, 07:36 PM
Sorry, but when most of the greatest minds in economics from the last several hundred years say one thing, and Swordsmyth says the reverse, the smart money is always on those aforementioned great minds. Always. Buy a $#@!ing clue. You're making yourself look foolish.

Adam Smith endorses retaliatory tariffs to procure concessions in foreign markets that use high barriers to our goods.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 07:53 PM
Adam Smith endorses retaliatory tariffs to procure concessions in foreign markets that use high barriers to our goods.

He was still not a fan of them. From Adam Smith: https://taxfoundation.org/adam-smith-trump-tariffs/


When there is no probability that any such repeal [of a tariff in a foreign country] can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them. When our neighbours prohibit some manufacture of ours, we generally prohibit, not only the same, for that alone would seldom affect them considerably, but some other manufacture of theirs. This may no doubt give encouragement to some particular class of workmen among ourselves, and by excluding some of their rivals, may enable them to raise their price in the home-market. Those workmen, however, who suffered by our neighbours prohibition will not be benefited by ours. On the contrary, they and almost all the other classes of our citizens will thereby be obliged to pay dearer than before for certain goods. Every such law, therefore, imposes a real tax upon the whole country, not in favour of that particular class of workmen who were injured by our neighbours prohibition, but of some other class.


If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. […] The value of [a country’s] annual produce is certainly more or less diminished when it is thus turned away from producing commodities evidently of more value than the commodity which it is directed to produce [by trade policies]. […] The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 08:13 PM
There are plenty of great minds that recommend defending your country against trade warfare.

Your attempt to appeal to authority shows your inability to defend your position.


If our conversation were occurring in a vaccuum you might actually have a point. Unfortunately for your position that is not the case. There are voluminous amounts of hard data aside from citations to legitimate authorities posted all over these forums which demonstrate the errors in your position, including some nice hard facts in the OP. I'm just adding to the mix.

Regardless of what data is posted, however, you invariably simply dismiss or ignore it. So it is evident that you have no interest in having an honest, forthright discussion, merely in finding any excuse you can to maintain your pre-existing dogma.

Epic fail.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:19 PM
If our conversation were occurring in a vaccuum you might actually have a point. Unfortunately for your position that is not the case. There are voluminous amounts of hard data aside from citations to legitimate authorities posted all over these forums which demonstrate the errors in your position, including some nice hard facts in the OP. I'm just adding to the mix.

Regardless of what data is posted, however, you invariably simply dismiss or ignore it. So it is evident that you have no interest in having an honest, forthright discussion, merely in finding any excuse you can to maintain your pre-existing dogma.

Epic fail.
I could say the same about you.

There is plenty of data to back up my position but your side just ignores it.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 08:26 PM
I could say the same about you.

There is plenty of data to back up my position but your side just ignores it.


Seriously? "I know you are but what am I?" SMH

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:28 PM
Swordsmyth will never be convinced that tariffs are anything but wonderful. I think it is because they cause conflicts between countries and weaken both of parties.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:28 PM
Seriously? "I know you are but what am I?" SMH
:rolleyes:

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:29 PM
Swordsmyth will never be convinced that tariffs are anything but wonderful. I think it is because they cause conflicts between countries and weaken both of parties.
LOL

No matter how often you tell that lie you can't make it true.

I am on record favoring low tariffs if other countries play fair.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:31 PM
LOL

No matter how often you tell that lie you can't make it true.

I am on record favoring low tariffs if other countries play fair.

Should we have tariffs with the EU? They had offered to get rid of over 90% of tariffs before Trump took office. He nixed that potential deal and instead imposed even more tariffs on them. Who was being fair?

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:34 PM
Should we have tariffs with the EU? They had offered to get rid of over 90% of tariffs before Trump took office. He nixed that potential deal and instead imposed even more tariffs on them. Who was being fair?
There was a lot more to that deal that made it bad.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:36 PM
There was a lot more to that deal that made it bad.

Like what?

TheCount
10-27-2018, 08:41 PM
Companies aren't in the business of underestimating their own future earnings.

If they publish bad news about themselves, you can be sure that they believe it's true, and they're in the best position to know.
The whole world is in a conspiracy against the god emperor.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:42 PM
Like what?

I've told you before, it included sovereignty destroying world government clauses.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:43 PM
The whole world is in a conspiracy against the god emperor.

That's actually pretty close to the truth.

r3volution 3.0
10-27-2018, 08:44 PM
LOL

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:47 PM
I've told you before, it included sovereignty destroying world government clauses.

If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.

TheCount
10-27-2018, 08:49 PM
That's actually pretty close to the truth.

It is the truth. The world is fundamentally math-based, and math is his enemy. Also facts. And logic.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:53 PM
If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.
All you need is an agreement, if one side breaks it the other side can retaliate.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:53 PM
It is the truth. The world is fundamentally math-based, and math is his enemy. Also facts. And logic.
Those things are on Trump's side.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:54 PM
All you need is an agreement, if one side breaks it the other side can retaliate.

You can do that without an agreement. Why sign a free trade agreement? Just tariff each other into submission.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:55 PM
Those things are on Trump's side.

Trump has never let facts get in his way.

spudea
10-27-2018, 08:55 PM
If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.

now who is advocating for globalist managed trade? didn't you just read in this thread from CCTelander how Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and Ron Paul are against managed trade? Other countries should just follow their teachings because its the best thing for everyone right?

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 08:56 PM
If you want free trade, you need rules and a body to enforce those rules to ensure that trade remains free and fair and rule on disagreements. Otherwise, either side can do what they want and violate the free trade agreement. If that is what you mean by "sovereignty destroying clauses". Yes, it means you can't violate the treaty whenever you want to or it suits your fancy. It would have meant the lowest barriers to trade in modern history. Without enforcement, the agreement is worthless.


What you describe is pretty much the exact opposite of free trade. All you need for real free trade is for government to get the hell out of it. Completely.

CCTelander
10-27-2018, 08:57 PM
Those things are on Trump's side.


http://justabgkid.com/TrumpAid.png

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:58 PM
now who is advocating for globalist managed trade? didn't you just read in this thread from CCTelander how Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and Ron Paul are against managed trade? Other countries should just follow their teachings because its the best thing for everyone right?

They are also against tariffs.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 08:59 PM
What you describe is pretty much the exact opposite of free trade. All you need for real free trade is for government to get the hell out of it. Completely.

What do you do if the other side wants to aid their own businesses? Either through tax breaks, direct aid, or tariffs? They are a free country and should be able to do what they want to without us telling them what to do, right?

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 08:59 PM
You can do that without an agreement. Why sign a free trade agreement? Just tariff each other into submission.
If they are willing to agree the tariffs aren't necessary and if the tariffs are required the agreement is the goal.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 09:03 PM
If they are willing to agree the tariffs aren't necessary and if the tariffs are required the agreement is the goal.

So Trump should have stuck with the proposed agreement instead of throwing it out and instituting more tariffs. They were willing to agree.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 09:09 PM
So Trump should have stuck with the proposed agreement instead of throwing it out and instituting more tariffs. They were willing to agree.
You know very well it was more than a simple agreement.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 09:21 PM
You know very well it was more than a simple agreement.

Trade agreements are by their very nature very complicated. Trade is not simple and the varieties of products is vast. Consider the simple sounding idea of a tariff on steel. Is that just raw steel or does it include refined steel? What about things made with steel? Does the tariff apply to them? If so, does it apply to just the percent of the item made from steel or the entire item? There are different types of steel. Does it apply to all of them? What if they buy the steel from you and make something from it? Is that exempt?

spudea
10-27-2018, 09:31 PM
where's the resident anarchist that can tell us how governments shouldn't exist at all to impede voluntary exchange?

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 09:36 PM
where's the resident anarchist that can tell us how governments shouldn't exist at all to impede voluntary exchange?

Tariffs are the government telling companies who they should and should not be trading with rather than letting them decide for themselves. They are the government picking winners and losers in the economy. Then consumers get to pay for that privilege with higher taxes and fewer jobs.

spudea
10-27-2018, 09:41 PM
Tariffs are the government telling companies who they should and should not be trading with rather than letting them decide for themselves. They are the government picking winners and losers in the economy. Then consumers get to pay for that privilege with higher taxes and fewer jobs.

cool story tell that to the Chinese.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 09:46 PM
cool story tell that to the Chinese.

Should we allow another country tell the US how to treat our businesses? Should China allow the US to tell them how to treat their companies?

Our tariffs on steel help US companies which make steel but hurt US companies which use steel to produce products. The US government said that the steel industry should be subsidized by those other businesses and consumers to protect steel makers from the Chinese. (only about three percent of our imported steel came from China). All in the name of "national security".

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 09:54 PM
Should we allow another country tell the US how to treat our businesses? Should China allow the US to tell them how to treat their companies?
We should if we want an agreement with them and they are telling us to treat them in a more liberty oriented fashion.


Our tariffs on steel help US companies which make steel but hurt US companies which use steel to produce products. The US government said that the steel industry should be subsidized by those other businesses and consumers to protect steel makers from the Chinese. (only about three percent of our imported steel came from China).

Chinese steel is routed through other countries so that useful idiots like you can spout that 3% number, their dumping in other countries also causes those other countries to dump their steel on our market as well.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 09:55 PM
We should if we want an agreement with them and they are telling us to treat them in a more liberty oriented fashion.



Chinese steel is routed through other countries so that useful idiots like you can spout that 3% number, their dumping in other countries also causes those other countries to dump their steel on our market as well.

Which other countries?

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 09:58 PM
Which other countries?
Canada and Mexico are two of them, NAFTA made it easier.

Zippyjuan
10-27-2018, 10:03 PM
Canada and Mexico are two of them, NAFTA made it easier.

Canada gets hardly any steel from China. Actually they get most of their imports from us. Same thing for Mexico. China supplies them with four percent of their steel imports- the US gives them 36%.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-15ac20e63fcc506a567b0d8f75f0dd8c

Who does China export their steel to?

https://www.steel-360.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/China-Country-Wise-Export.jpg

r3volution 3.0
10-27-2018, 10:11 PM
dump

verb

to satisfy my consumers better than I can, such as to prompt me to lobby the state for subsidies.

Swordsmyth
10-27-2018, 10:19 PM
verb

to satisfy my consumers better than I can, such as to prompt me to lobby the state for subsidies.
:rolleyes:

nobody's_hero
10-28-2018, 12:20 PM
Devil's advocate:

What if tariffs actually work? What if economic think-tanks based all their negative opinions on tariffs purely on theories that were formulated in a vacuum that doesn't exist in the real world?


Americans seem more motivated to work harder and achieve more today than I've ever seen in my life. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the endless supply of people who will work for peanuts is no longer factoring into the equation. This isn't just "protectionism" for big business. Average Americans are benefiting as well. There's a massive attitude shift. Almost like a 'Fk' it, we'll go it alone' 'can and will do' sort of attitude. It beats the hell out of giving up and sitting on a couch at home living on food stamps and credit card debt, which seems to have been what we've been groomed to believe and expect. I see a build-up of character once again. The easy path, of course, is to just continue to live on cheap labor and nothing changes. There's no reason to open your own business when you can just keep finding people who are more desperate than you to see how much you can get with your allowance.


I'm keeping an open mind, that tariffs might actually work and we've been fed a bowl of lies that was so appetizing even free-marketers lined up for a serving. I would be curious to see who is proven correct in a world where we wake up tomorrow and no governments exist and we can finally see how a global economy works without any government at all. Since that's not likely to happen, trial and error is the order of the day.

One thing I've been thinking about lately is the southern democrat attitude towards tariffs in the antebellum days. I'm not drawing the correlation to villainize people. But, I'm gonna pose a question: Could an economic system based on slavery and an endless quest to find cheaper and cheaper labor survive with tariffs? Or, if the south had supported tariffs, would people who had been settling for a minimum eventually be running their own businesses as well, like those in the North? (even if, with the help of government intervention —horrific thought I suppose). I'm not really wording that the best way but I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet. Hopefully you can kind of see the question I'm posing there. What if, it was a bunch of lies? If they were wrong on the issue of slavery, could they have also been wrong on the issue of tariffs?

I expect to be challenged on this post. What I lack are facts—which I acknowledge, but really what I'm posing here is more an alternative theory to "tariffs are bad", just to provoke thought. Take it as an opinion, at best.

Swordsmyth
10-28-2018, 07:52 PM
Devil's advocate:

What if tariffs actually work? What if economic think-tanks based all their negative opinions on tariffs purely on theories that were formulated in a vacuum that doesn't exist in the real world?


Americans seem more motivated to work harder and achieve more today than I've ever seen in my life. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the endless supply of people who will work for peanuts is no longer factoring into the equation. This isn't just "protectionism" for big business. Average Americans are benefiting as well. There's a massive attitude shift. Almost like a 'Fk' it, we'll go it alone' 'can and will do' sort of attitude. It beats the hell out of giving up and sitting on a couch at home living on food stamps and credit card debt, which seems to have been what we've been groomed to believe and expect. I see a build-up of character once again. The easy path, of course, is to just continue to live on cheap labor and nothing changes. There's no reason to open your own business when you can just keep finding people who are more desperate than you to see how much you can get with your allowance.


I'm keeping an open mind, that tariffs might actually work and we've been fed a bowl of lies that was so appetizing even free-marketers lined up for a serving. I would be curious to see who is proven correct in a world where we wake up tomorrow and no governments exist and we can finally see how a global economy works without any government at all. Since that's not likely to happen, trial and error is the order of the day.

One thing I've been thinking about lately is the southern democrat attitude towards tariffs in the antebellum days. I'm not drawing the correlation to villainize people. But, I'm gonna pose a question: Could an economic system based on slavery and an endless quest to find cheaper and cheaper labor survive with tariffs? Or, if the south had supported tariffs, would people who had been settling for a minimum eventually be running their own businesses as well, like those in the North? (even if, with the help of government intervention —horrific thought I suppose). I'm not really wording that the best way but I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet. Hopefully you can kind of see the question I'm posing there. What if, it was a bunch of lies? If they were wrong on the issue of slavery, could they have also been wrong on the issue of tariffs?

I expect to be challenged on this post. What I lack are facts—which I acknowledge, but really what I'm posing here is more an alternative theory to "tariffs are bad", just to provoke thought. Take it as an opinion, at best.
I believe in low tariffs in an ideal world but we don't live in an ideal world and it will take fighting back in the trade wars to possibly get closer to one.

Krugminator2
10-28-2018, 07:54 PM
What do you do if the other side wants to aid their own businesses? Either through tax breaks, direct aid, or tariffs? They are a free country and should be able to do what they want to without us telling them what to do, right?


Yes?

And what do you mean by aid their own businesses? Tariffs hurt their countries businesses on net.