America To "Lose" In A Trade War?
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
I wouldn't expect more from you, you have "Jem" like tendencies in your posts. He's just a little more lunatic fringe then you are
.
Last edited:
I'm fine with that. I'd rather be allies with Putin than Europe at this point. Europe, like Canada, gets a free ride on defense from the US and contributes essentially nothing but unsolicited advice.
Don't get me wrong, we're damn lucky to have Canada as our northern neighbor, compared to say, Brazil or Pakistan, but you're even luckier to have us.
Protectionism screws the consumers of the countries putting on tariffs. And there are a multiple of those for every union guy who's being backstopped by the gov't with tariffs. It's easy to claim car buyers are willing to pay a little more for their cars to help steel workers because it's nothing but a subjective claim that can't be proved. If there's really a desire to know whether consumers would be happy to pay more, look at something where the facts are objective, like washing machines, which are a homogenous product that is either domestic or foreign made. The US just put a tariff on foreign washing machines a couple of months ago to stifle imports. LG and Samsung had been gaining sales and mkt share at the expense of Whirlpool over the last five years. If Americans would be happy to support American workers by paying higher prices, there would be no need to slap a tariff on imports. Americans buy imported washing machines because they get the best deal for the money. They would not need the gov't coercing them to buy American if they were happy to pay more for American products. If money doesn't mean anything to consumers, then why do they buy cheaper products? We all know why. Because money does matter.
Claiming that corporate executives are the beneficiaries of free trade is ridiculous. Corporate executives make more money when their profits go up. And their profits go up much more when a gov't slaps tariffs on their competitors than when they have to compete with foreigners. And that is an obvious fact.
Trump brought up President Mckinley's tariffs as being an example we should emulate. Those Mckinley tariffs made Andrew Carnagie, the original steel magnate, one of the wealthiest people ever in America. Carnegie is generally regarded as the greatest beneficiary of the protective tariff that this country has ever seen. He'd be worth over 370 billion in today's dollars. He was made rich by tariffs on his competitors. Corporate execs and owners of businesses are the biggest winners when tariffs are placed on competitors. They clean up.
The national security argument is bogus, but used because there is no valid argument for tariffs.
Not Even The Pentagon Thinks Tariffs Are Needed For National Defense
https://googleweblight.com/?lite_ur...821727&sig=AOyes_RyjOlR09jrKJsUD38wvxrxzJkakw
The US military requirements for national security are 3% of US production. This is what the pentagon says. Claiming we need these tariffs for security is a farce.
We import 2% of our steel from China. So the claim is made that the "shadow imports" through other countries like Canada is how China gets their steel in here. Researchers poor cold water on this claim and say research shows the 2% would be 4% with shadow imports added.
Tariffs are a massive tax on consumers to benefit the few. The few are visible and seen, the many who are getting screwed are unseen.
Ok, he needs those workers from industrial states to get elected. But don't pretend like it's any kind of net economic benefit for this country to prop up these workers by putting the screws to everyone else. Ignoring the everyone else part of the equation is the only way to make the unreasonable sound reasonable.
Claiming that corporate executives are the beneficiaries of free trade is ridiculous. Corporate executives make more money when their profits go up. And their profits go up much more when a gov't slaps tariffs on their competitors than when they have to compete with foreigners. And that is an obvious fact.
Trump brought up President Mckinley's tariffs as being an example we should emulate. Those Mckinley tariffs made Andrew Carnagie, the original steel magnate, one of the wealthiest people ever in America. Carnegie is generally regarded as the greatest beneficiary of the protective tariff that this country has ever seen. He'd be worth over 370 billion in today's dollars. He was made rich by tariffs on his competitors. Corporate execs and owners of businesses are the biggest winners when tariffs are placed on competitors. They clean up.
The national security argument is bogus, but used because there is no valid argument for tariffs.
Not Even The Pentagon Thinks Tariffs Are Needed For National Defense
https://googleweblight.com/?lite_ur...821727&sig=AOyes_RyjOlR09jrKJsUD38wvxrxzJkakw
The US military requirements for national security are 3% of US production. This is what the pentagon says. Claiming we need these tariffs for security is a farce.
We import 2% of our steel from China. So the claim is made that the "shadow imports" through other countries like Canada is how China gets their steel in here. Researchers poor cold water on this claim and say research shows the 2% would be 4% with shadow imports added.
Tariffs are a massive tax on consumers to benefit the few. The few are visible and seen, the many who are getting screwed are unseen.
Ok, he needs those workers from industrial states to get elected. But don't pretend like it's any kind of net economic benefit for this country to prop up these workers by putting the screws to everyone else. Ignoring the everyone else part of the equation is the only way to make the unreasonable sound reasonable.
ask the pentagon how secure we would be if we let China drive our steel companies out of business. I find it hard that anyone at the pentagon would say we don't need steel produced in America. So if anyone got a quote from the pentagon in the article. (the link did not work) it was political b.s.
Predictions from economists stating that would never happen are not based in market reality.
You let other countries protect their markets and dump here long enough and you are gone. Like flat panel displays and t.v.s
Predictions from economists stating that would never happen are not based in market reality.
You let other countries protect their markets and dump here long enough and you are gone. Like flat panel displays and t.v.s
Wow the reaction to a field-leveling tariff on steel and aluminum! We haven't even gotten to the main event yet!
That new Audi you've been wanting... the new Bentley you've been mulling for wifey (with that fat bonus lol)... better make your move pretty soon because there will be huge tariffs on European vehicles and its about time.
That new Audi you've been wanting... the new Bentley you've been mulling for wifey (with that fat bonus lol)... better make your move pretty soon because there will be huge tariffs on European vehicles and its about time.