Trump Plays Dangerous Game Of Chicken With Trade Tariffs

GM sells more cars in China than the U.S. and has plans to sell much more there now that foreign manufacturers can set up plants wholly owned by themselves.

Got a question though: who is this mysteriously successful real estate billionaire - there are over two dozen in the industry in the U.S.? Because at first I thought no it can't be our bankrupt Reality TV star President that is being referenced. A genuine real honest to God billionaire. Who then?
 
d08 said:
Agreed.
The BMW Spartanburg plant exports a huge amount of cars, X-class BMWs are everywhere here (EU) and the ones are all from the US plant. With the trade wars, I expect the production to come back to Europe.

US makers in Europe are somewhat different in that the model line for Ford is significantly different, most models don't exist in the US and are designed by Ford Europe. Many Europeans probably think Ford as British...

Both markets are flooded with Korean/Japanese. Nissan manufacturer in Europe. Tariffs have largely been about getting car plant jobs to local countries even if it is mostly just parts assembly.

GM doesn't really have much of a presence in Europe at all. Opel was the main German maker bought by GM but that's not Peugeot's.
More...

As you say GM US stuff does not sell (Buick/Caddy). They do own Opel (Germany's largest selling average-end/Vauxhall (UK) and Holden in Oz. Fiat and Chrysler are merged and that covers a huge range including Alpha Romeo, for years Ford owned Aston Martin (and lifted a lot of styling ideas)..

Japanese/Korean and now Chinese sell in Euro & US in huge numbers. The tariffs have been more about getting car assembly plant jobs in-country to offset like Nissan's plants in the UK. Politicians love jobs.

Trump is pulling a trick here making a simple story for his Nuremberg rally attendees when the real money flows have nothing to do with a few high-end cars in Manhattan.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: d08
are we micro-analyzing here? the end result is easy to measure... right now deficit is $800b, if this can get down to $600b in a couple of years thru all these negotiations, that will be a huge success.
 
dozu888 said:
are we micro-analyzing here? the end result is easy to measure... right now deficit is $800b, if this can get down to $600b in a couple of years thru all these negotiations, that will be a huge success.
More...

No it won't be a 'huge success" :) It will be a 'Uge!' success meaning whatever you thought you saved was more than lost in another area.

Just a quick look as someone else was surely thinking the same..

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-trade-deficit-fact-check-trump-claim-g7-summit/

"TRADE DEFICIT
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "Last year, they lost 800 — we as a nation, over the years — but the latest number is $817 billion on trade. That's ridiculous and it's unacceptable. And everybody was told that." — news conference Saturday at the Group of Seven summit in Canada.

THE FACTS: Mr. Trump's bottom-line number in his dispute with trading partners is wrong. The U.S. ran a trade deficit last year of $568.4 billion, says his administration's Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis, not $817 billion.

Mr. Trump refers only to the deficit in goods. Last year, the U.S. bought $811 billion more in goods from other countries than other countries bought from the U.S. But the U.S. had a surplus in trade in services, which brought the actual trade deficit down.

He made a similar error in a tweet Thursday, saying "The EU trade surplus with the U.S. is $151 Billion." It was $101 billion.

The U.S. is more competitive in services than in goods overall, and services are a big part of the trade equation. Mr. Trump glosses over that aspect of trade.
"

And on and on... It was the same with his attacks on Canada months back, goods but not services.
 
Last edited:
Slartibartfast said:
No it won't be a 'huge success" :) It will be a 'Uge!' success meaning whatever you thought you saved was more than lost in another area.

Just a quick look as someone else was surely thinking the same..

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-trade-deficit-fact-check-trump-claim-g7-summit/

"TRADE DEFICIT
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "Last year, they lost 800 — we as a nation, over the years — but the latest number is $817 billion on trade. That's ridiculous and it's unacceptable. And everybody was told that." — news conference Saturday at the Group of Seven summit in Canada.

THE FACTS: Mr. Trump's bottom-line number in his dispute with trading partners is wrong. The U.S. ran a trade deficit last year of $568.4 billion, says his administration's Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis, not $817 billion.

Mr. Trump refers only to the deficit in goods. Last year, the U.S. bought $811 billion more in goods from other countries than other countries bought from the U.S. But the U.S. had a surplus in trade in services, which brought the actual trade deficit down.

He made a similar error in a tweet Thursday, saying "The EU trade surplus with the U.S. is $151 Billion." It was $101 billion.

The U.S. is more competitive in services than in goods overall, and services are a big part of the trade equation. Mr. Trump glosses over that aspect of trade.
"

And on and on... It was the same with his attacks on Canada months back, goods but not services.
More...

ok - semi-micro analysis here? bottom line is he's trying to make the best deal for the USA... that's all that matters.... and if the numbers are indeed inflated, that just shows his negotiation skills.
 
dozu888 said:
ok - semi-micro analysis here? bottom line is he's trying to make the best deal for the USA... that's all that matters.... and if the numbers are indeed inflated, that just shows his negotiation skills.
More...

Not when the lie/bs is that obvious. He bankrupted CASINOS.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Not when the lie/bs is that obvious. He bankrupted CASINOS.
More...

Trump did not bankrupt his casinos. Casinos were failing because there was too many of them in New Jersey and the market was saturated and a number of casinos went under! Not every business venture you get in will succeed! How many casinos in New Jersey failed after Donald Trump already sold his stake in his casinos?
 
smallfil said:
Trump did not bankrupt his casinos. Casinos were failing because there was too many of them in New Jersey and the market was saturated and a number of casinos went under! Not every business venture you get in will succeed! How many casinos in New Jersey failed after Donald Trump already sold his stake in his casinos?
More...

You do know who put in the casinos within shouting distance of each other and in competition with each other. One after another with new investors and not proving the profitability of the first?

Take some time to impartially investigate it. What he did was jaw dropping and especially when you realise it was investors forced him to plug the hole, not even his decision. 4 cents on the dollar for the Taj.

DJT1.jpg


Oh and he then bled them even more dry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top