Hatch: Trump steel and aluminum tariffs are a 'tax hike on Americans'

[Hoodat]

Considering that little island held most of the world.... not too bad. Too everything a beginning, every Empire an end.

Adam Smith or Keynesian economics? Where fall you? Personally I am Adam Smith/Austrian.

Adam Smith was mercantilism's staunchest critic.  Half a century after "The Wealth of Nations" was published, the UK finally adopted his ideas and did away with tariffs.  In the years that followed, the UK became the world's premier economic superpower.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Adam Smith was mercantilism's staunchest critic.  Half a century after "The Wealth of Nations" was published, the UK finally adopted his ideas and did away with tariffs.  In the years that followed, the UK became the world's premier economic superpower.

 

[GrouchoTex]

   I overlooked your point about the Federal/State Taxes being levied on this precious commodity @IsailedawayfromFR because every time I go to Houston I see massive interstate highway projects going on so I suppose Texas is getting back somewhat that we pay in.
   It's been mostly a travesty since Spindletop with big gov regulation/taxes and will probably NOT be unraveled in our lifetime.

 

[Fantom]

Adam Smith was mercantilism's staunchest critic.  Half a century after "The Wealth of Nations" was published, the UK finally adopted his ideas and did away with tariffs.  In the years that followed, the UK became the world's premier economic superpower.

@Hoodat

Indeed Adam Smith was mercantilism's staunchest critic. But that is what we are facing with Chinna/EU and others.

As for Adam Smiths view of tariffs, they are much like Trumps. It would seem.

http://business-superstar.com/words-of-wisdom/adam-smith-and-tariffs/

In Book IV, Smith discussed various aspects of international trade, and he soon turns to the notion of tariffs: “As there are two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic industry; so there are two others in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation; in the one, how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods; and in the other, how far, or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation after it has been for some time interrupted.”

 

Of these cases, retaliation is the most appropriate justification for restricting free trade: “The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain reign goods, is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours. Nations accordingly seldom fail to retaliate in this manner.”

 

Tariffs and other forms of importation restrictions can harm the restricted nation and create an extreme imbalance. Either trade has to come to a complete stop with the restricting nation, or retaliatory tariffs must be put in place to prevent war from starting between the two nations.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

Indeed Adam Smith was mercantilism's staunchest critic. But that is what we are facing with Chinna/EU and others.

No, it isn't.  Not even remotely close.  There is NOTHING in our trade relations with any country that has anything to do with mercantilism in any fashion whatsoever.

As for Adam Smiths view of tariffs, they are much like Trumps. It would seem.

Maybe you should actually read Smith's view.  Then you would know that his view is nothing like Trump's.

http://business-superstar.com/words-of-wisdom/adam-smith-and-tariffs/

In Book IV, Smith discussed various aspects of international trade, and he soon turns to the notion of tariffs: “As there are two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic industry; so there are two others in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation; in the one, how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods; and in the other, how far, or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation after it has been for some time interrupted.”

 Of these cases, retaliation is the most appropriate justification for restricting free trade: “The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain reign goods, is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country.

First of all, we are not talking about encouraging some developing industry.  We are talking about payoffs to long-developed industries that have priced themselves out of the global market by artificially setting a price for them that is above market value.

And we are also not talking about retaliating against nations that bar our products from competing in those nations.  Instead, we are talking about retaliating against Canada, Mexico, India, South Korea, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Taiwan, and Germany, simply because Americans want to buy their steel.  But we won't be punishing any of those countries.  The only ones who will be punished are American consumers.  That is not what Adam Smith had in mind.

Keep reading further:

Ultimately, protectionist tariffs, ones that seek to give benefit to local workers over a competing nation, have long term negative consequences: “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.”

As you can see, Trump and Smith do not at all share the same view.  Smith looks at how it will affect the people while Trump looks at how it will win him votes.


So I will ask it once more.  If tariffs failed for Obama, what makes you think they will work when Trump implements them?

[kevindavis007]

Trump is seems to be getting his advise from Herbert Hoover.

[Emjay]

If we're going back to Adam Smith and Herbert Hoover, we are not dealing with today's realities.

Key Findings of the Steel Report:

The United States is the world’s largest importer of steel. Our imports are nearly four times our exports.

Six basic oxygen furnaces and four electric furnaces have closed since 2000 and employment has dropped by 35% since 1998.

World steelmaking capacity is 2.4 billion metric tons, up 127% from 2000, while steel demand grew at a slower rate.

The recent global excess capacity is 700 million tons, almost 7 times the annual total of U.S. steel consumption. China is by far the largest producer and exporter of steel, and the largest source of excess steel capacity. Their excess capacity alone exceeds the total U.S. steel-making capacity.

On an average month, China produces nearly as much steel as the U.S. does in a year. For certain types of steel, such as for electrical transformers, only one U.S. producer remains.

As of February 15, 2018, the U.S. had 169 antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place on steel, of which 29 are against China, and there are 25 ongoing investigations.

Recommendations of the Steel Report:

Secretary Ross has recommended to the President that he consider the following alternative remedies to address the problem of steel imports:

A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

Each of these remedies is intended to increase domestic steel production from its present 73% of capacity to approximately an 80% operating rate, the minimum rate needed for the long-term viability of the industry. Each remedy applies measures to all countries and all steel products to prevent circumvention.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Orrin Hatch.

Yeah, I always keep his portrait right next to George Washington's.

"No nation is to be trusted farther than it's own interests."
Geo. Washington

[Hoodat]

If we're going back to Adam Smith and Herbert Hoover, we are not dealing with today's realities.

Next time someone brings up 'gravity', I will be sure to inform them that if they are going back to Isaac Newton, then they are not dealing with today's realities.

Key Findings of the Steel Report:

The United States is the world’s largest importer of steel. Our imports are nearly four times our exports.

Six basic oxygen furnaces and four electric furnaces have closed since 2000 and employment has dropped by 35% since 1998.

World steelmaking capacity is 2.4 billion metric tons, up 127% from 2000, while steel demand grew at a slower rate.

Do you know what this means?  It means that the rest of the world is doing a much better job of producing steel than the US.

The recent global excess capacity is 700 million tons, almost 7 times the annual total of U.S. steel consumption. China is by far the largest producer and exporter of steel, and the largest source of excess steel capacity. Their excess capacity alone exceeds the total U.S. steel-making capacity.

On an average month, China produces nearly as much steel as the U.S. does in a year. For certain types of steel, such as for electrical transformers, only one U.S. producer remains.

China is also in the process of closing mills.  They have taken a huge hit economically because of government interference in their steel industry.  It is a common problem that communist/fascist governments make.  On average, they make more money selling a bowl of lo mein than they make selling a ton of steel.  Brand new steel plants put online in the last ten years are now closing their doors.  They also have no technological innovation and are not large producers of specialty steel.

As of February 15, 2018, the U.S. had 169 antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place on steel, of which 29 are against China, and there are 25 ongoing investigations.

Less than 2% of our total steel imports come from China.  This has been pointed out to you again and again and again, yet you still think of them as the driving force that is putting US Steel out of business.  They aren't.  US Steel has been losing market share for decades now through sheer arrogance and an unwillingness to adapt.

Recommendations of the Steel Report:

A link would have been nice.  https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/02/secretary-ross-releases-steel-and-aluminum-232-reports-coordination

Secretary Ross has recommended to the President that he consider the following alternative remedies to address the problem of steel imports:

A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

Each of these remedies is intended to increase domestic steel production from its present 73% of capacity to approximately an 80% operating rate, the minimum rate needed for the long-term viability of the industry. Each remedy applies measures to all countries and all steel products to prevent circumvention.

Had you read the very first sentence of the report, you would see that the purpose of this report was to address the impact on national security.  Once again the goal posts have been moved.  Seriously, make up your mind.  If this is all about China and national security, then stop pushing the fake narrative that tariffs are good for the economy.  They aren't.  If you want for the United States to adopt the exact same failure of a policy that China has, then simply cut off imports and make the US completely self-reliant upon steel.  I mean, why let the market dictate how much steel is produced when you can just have the government do it for you like China does.  And when Government chooses wrongly, then thousands of steel workers will find their plants shuttered just like their Chinese counterparts.  Or better yet, we can simply dump all that surplus steel into Lake Erie.

And of course there are all the other US businesses that will have to close because they will no longer be able to get their specialty steel orders filled by Japan any more - the same orders that US steel companies refuse to fill.  But hey, you know better than the invisible hand, right?

[Oceander]

Next time someone brings up 'gravity', I will be sure to inform them that if they are going back to Isaac Newton, then they are not dealing with today's realities.


Do you know what this means?  It means that the rest of the world is doing a much better job of producing steel than the US.


China is also in the process of closing mills.  They have taken a huge hit economically because of government interference in their steel industry.  It is a common problem that communist/fascist governments make.  On average, they make more money selling a bowl of lo mein than they make selling a ton of steel.  Brand new steel plants put online in the last ten years are now closing their doors.  They also have no technological innovation and are not large producers of specialty steel.


Less than 2% of our total steel imports come from China.  This has been pointed out to you again and again and again, yet you still think of them as the driving force that is putting US Steel out of business.  They aren't.  US Steel has been losing market share for decades now through sheer arrogance and an unwillingness to adapt.


A link would have been nice.  https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/02/secretary-ross-releases-steel-and-aluminum-232-reports-coordination


Had you read the very first sentence of the report, you would see that the purpose of this report was to address the impact on national security.  Once again the goal posts have been moved.  Seriously, make up your mind.  If this is all about China and national security, then stop pushing the fake narrative that tariffs are good for the economy.  They aren't.  If you want for the United States to adopt the exact same failure of a policy that China has, then simply cut off imports and make the US completely self-reliant upon steel.  I mean, why let the market dictate how much steel is produced when you can just have the government do it for you like China does.  And when Government chooses wrongly, then thousands of steel workers will find their plants shuttered just like their Chinese counterparts.  Or better yet, we can simply dump all that surplus steel into Lake Erie.

And of course there are all the other US businesses that will have to close because they will no longer be able to get their specialty steel orders filled by Japan any more - the same orders that US steel companies refuse to fill.  But hey, you know better than the invisible hand, right?

A tour de force!!!

[edpc]

Do you know what this means?  It means that the rest of the world is doing a much better job of producing steel than the US.

Of course she doesn’t know what it means.  It was an obvious cut-and-paste job and I’m still laughing my ass off over it.  Funny stuff - and it is reminiscent of ponytail guy in this scene.....


! No longer available

[Fantom]

No, it isn't.  Not even remotely close.  There is NOTHING in our trade relations with any country that has anything to do with mercantilism in any fashion whatsoever.


Maybe you should actually read Smith's view.  Then you would know that his view is nothing like Trump's.


First of all, we are not talking about encouraging some developing industry.  We are talking about payoffs to long-developed industries that have priced themselves out of the global market by artificially setting a price for them that is above market value.

And we are also not talking about retaliating against nations that bar our products from competing in those nations.  Instead, we are talking about retaliating against Canada, Mexico, India, South Korea, Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Taiwan, and Germany, simply because Americans want to buy their steel.  But we won't be punishing any of those countries.  The only ones who will be punished are American consumers.  That is not what Adam Smith had in mind.

Keep reading further:

As you can see, Trump and Smith do not at all share the same view.  Smith looks at how it will affect the people while Trump looks at how it will win him votes.


So I will ask it once more.  If tariffs failed for Obama, what makes you think they will work when Trump implements them?

You seem a reasonable sort... so's last first as is my wont.

First the  straw-man.... did tariffs fail obama? Meh... hostage rescue failed obama... Trump +17 ...GDP obama failed..... point made I think.

How it affects the People.... putting aside your hate for Trump. I would have to say Trump is more orientated to the People..Adam Smith... Ideological.... course that may just be me.

Keep reading further, well the big BIG  did say Adam agreed with me (my first post in this thread) that tariffs are a tax...... a broad based tax. One actually in the Constitution. For a reason. Care to disagree?

No actually, we are talking about all the nations which tax/tariff us more than we tariff them.... Canada/mehico and germany/chinna. That is mercantilism,  seeking to maximize exports...for lucre. SO Trumps tariffs are in line with Adam Smiths thinking. Their market cannot tariff us and we have ours open.

No, as per steel...we are keeping a strategic resource/industry.. a National interest as Emjay has pointed out. Again... in the very words and consideration of Adam Smith. Also Trump.

Maybe it is you who should read the words of Adam Smith... I posted a link, his words are quoted there. Get back to me when you understand them.

Which brings us to "Mercantilism". It is, the concept of gaining the most lucre thru trade. Would you not agree? Disadvantaged trade.... I.E. they charge 25% tariff on our goods..we charge nothing on theirs.

I am glad we have President Trump stopping that BS.

[Hoodat]

First the  straw-man.... did tariffs fail obama?

Yep, that's a strawman all right.  Because the victim here is the American worker and American consumer - not Obama or Trump.

How it affects the People.... putting aside your hate for Trump.

I don't hate Trump.  Far from it.  Now, how it affects the people .  .  .

I would have to say Trump is more orientated to the People..Adam Smith... Ideological.... course that may just be me.

So much for explaining how it affects the people.  Back to Trump.  As for populist v. idealist, considering that this is a cause and effect issue, populism really has no place here.

Keep reading further, well the big BIG  did say Adam agreed with me (my first post in this thread) that tariffs are a tax......

No one is disputing that a tariff is a tax (See:  "strawman" above).  However, Smith did correctly point out that the effect of that tax is that manufacturers of the product affected by that tax raise their prices after the tax takes effect, thus driving up the price of that good for everyone.

.... a broad based tax. One actually in the Constitution. For a reason. Care to disagree?

Considering that Smith lived in Scotland almost his entire life and never ventured across the Atlantic, I don't believe that Smith ever offered an opinion on whether tariffs were in a US Constitution written 11 after the Wealth of Nations was published.

No actually, we are talking about all the nations which tax/tariff us more than we tariff them.... Canada/mehico and germany/chinna.

Again, so what?  That is to their detriment - not ours.  If they are stupid enough to put restrictive tariffs in place, then it will prompt our industry become more competitive while at the same time lowering the standard of living of that tariff nation.

That is mercantilism,  seeking to maximize exports...for lucre.

And that is also stupid.  Also note that it is third world countries doing it.  Are you really suggesting that we adopt the trade policies of third world countries?  Perhaps you should ask instead what role their trade policy plays in maintaining their third world status.  Besides, it doesn't maximize exports.  It inhibits them.

SO Trumps tariffs are in line with Adam Smiths thinking.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Their market cannot tariff us and we have ours open.

So if we see that happening, we should immediate shoot ourselves in the foot by enacting a policy that hurts Americans?

Also, how do you explain enacting a tariff against Mexico when they have no tariffs in place against us?  Think, man.  This ain't organic chemistry.

No, as per steel...we are keeping a strategic resource/industry.. a National interest as Emjay has pointed out.

So all this talk about the steel tariffs being good for the economy have been pure unadulterated bullshit.  Glad that is settled.  btw, it is in our national interest to have the ability to acquire steel for all purposes.  Currently, that includes purchasing steel from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Canada - all allies.  Because without these purchases, American industry would suffer.  They would not be able to produce the products they currently sell because their only sources for these special orders come from countries like Japan.

But hey, if you really want to go the "national interest" route, why not place 300% tariffs on cargo shipbuilding or offshore oil platform hull construction?  Because right now, we rely on countries like South Korea, Japan, Norway, and even the Philippines to supply them. 

Maybe it is you who should read the words of Adam Smith... I posted a link, his words are quoted there. Get back to me when you understand them.

Here they are again:

Ultimately, protectionist tariffs, ones that seek to give benefit to local workers over a competing nation, have long term negative consequences: “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.”

Which brings us to "Mercantilism". It is, the concept of gaining the most lucre thru trade. Would you not agree?

Mercantilism  is the concept of maintaining economic supremacy through surplus trade.  It is a fatally flawed concept that was disproved as a viable economic model over two centuries ago.  It is also going to be nearly impossible for the world premier economic superpower to implement considering that we are a service economy and that we don't have a fascist government willing to squelch out American consumer demand at the point of a gun.

Disadvantaged trade.... I.E. they charge 25% tariff on our goods..we charge nothing on theirs.

That hurts them, not us.  But clearly, you are more into settling grudges at the expense of the American consumer and American industry.  Maybe if you play your cars right, we could revitalize the VCR business by placing a huge tariff on foreign imports.  Or maybe candles.  We need to revitalize the candle industry by protecting it from foreign competitors.  It's a matter of national security!

I am glad we have President Trump stopping that BS.

At least you have your priorities straight.  To you, trade isn't about growing the pie.  It's only about "winning", settling scores, and whining.  Lots of whining.  Whining because some shithole country like El Salvador won't by enough Cadillacs from the US to balance out all the bananas we buy from them.  And you have the effrontery to demand a level playing field with a country that can't  even provide all of its people with electricity and running water?

But you are glad to have a President who takes trade advice from Bernie Sanders.  That says a lot.

[Oceander]

Yep, that's a strawman all right.  Because the victim here is the American worker and American consumer - not Obama or Trump.


I don't hate Trump.  Far from it.  Now, how it affects the people .  .  .


So much for explaining how it affects the people.  Back to Trump.  As for populist v. idealist, considering that this is a cause and effect issue, populism really has no place here.


No one is disputing that a tariff is a tax (See:  "strawman" above).  However, Smith did correctly point out that the effect of that tax is that manufacturers of the product affected by that tax raise their prices after the tax takes effect, thus driving up the price of that good for everyone.


Considering that Smith lived in Scotland almost his entire life and never ventured across the Atlantic, I don't believe that Smith ever offered an opinion on whether tariffs were in a US Constitution written 11 after the Wealth of Nations was published.


Again, so what?  That is to their detriment - not ours.  If they are stupid enough to put restrictive tariffs in place, then it will prompt our industry become more competitive while at the same time lowering the standard of living of that tariff nation.


And that is also stupid.  Also note that it is third world countries doing it.  Are you really suggesting that we adopt the trade policies of third world countries?  Perhaps you should ask instead what role their trade policy plays in maintaining their third world status.  Besides, it doesn't maximize exports.  It inhibits them.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.


So if we see that happening, we should immediate shoot ourselves in the foot by enacting a policy that hurts Americans?

Also, how do you explain enacting a tariff against Mexico when they have no tariffs in place against us?  Think, man.  This ain't organic chemistry.


So all this talk about the steel tariffs being good for the economy have been pure unadulterated bullshit.  Glad that is settled.  btw, it is in our national interest to have the ability to acquire steel for all purposes.  Currently, that includes purchasing steel from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Canada - all allies.  Because without these purchases, American industry would suffer.  They would not be able to produce the products they currently sell because their only sources for these special orders come from countries like Japan.

But hey, if you really want to go the "national interest" route, why not place 300% tariffs on cargo shipbuilding or offshore oil platform hull construction?  Because right now, we rely on countries like South Korea, Japan, Norway, and even the Philippines to supply them. 


Here they are again:


Mercantilism  is the concept of maintaining economic supremacy through surplus trade.  It is a fatally flawed concept that was disproved as a viable economic model over two centuries ago.  It is also going to be nearly impossible for the world premier economic superpower to implement considering that we are a service economy and that we don't have a fascist government willing to squelch out American consumer demand at the point of a gun.


That hurts them, not us.  But clearly, you are more into settling grudges at the expense of the American consumer and American industry.  Maybe if you play your cars right, we could revitalize the VCR business by placing a huge tariff on foreign imports.  Or maybe candles.  We need to revitalize the candle industry by protecting it from foreign competitors.  It's a matter of national security!


At least you have your priorities straight.  To you, trade isn't about growing the pie.  It's only about "winning", settling scores, and whining.  Lots of whining.  Whining because some shithole country like El Salvador won't by enough Cadillacs from the US to balance out all the bananas we buy from them.  And you have the effrontery to demand a level playing field with a country that can't  even provide all of its people with electricity and running water?

But you are glad to have a President who takes trade advice from Bernie Sanders.  That says a lot.

 

[Fantom]

Yep, that's a strawman all right.  Because the victim here is the American worker and American consumer - not Obama or Trump.


I don't hate Trump.  Far from it.  Now, how it affects the people .  .  .


So much for explaining how it affects the people.  Back to Trump.  As for populist v. idealist, considering that this is a cause and effect issue, populism really has no place here.


No one is disputing that a tariff is a tax (See:  "strawman" above).  However, Smith did correctly point out that the effect of that tax is that manufacturers of the product affected by that tax raise their prices after the tax takes effect, thus driving up the price of that good for everyone.


Considering that Smith lived in Scotland almost his entire life and never ventured across the Atlantic, I don't believe that Smith ever offered an opinion on whether tariffs were in a US Constitution written 11 after the Wealth of Nations was published.


Again, so what?  That is to their detriment - not ours.  If they are stupid enough to put restrictive tariffs in place, then it will prompt our industry become more competitive while at the same time lowering the standard of living of that tariff nation.


And that is also stupid.  Also note that it is third world countries doing it.  Are you really suggesting that we adopt the trade policies of third world countries?  Perhaps you should ask instead what role their trade policy plays in maintaining their third world status.  Besides, it doesn't maximize exports.  It inhibits them.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.


So if we see that happening, we should immediate shoot ourselves in the foot by enacting a policy that hurts Americans?

Also, how do you explain enacting a tariff against Mexico when they have no tariffs in place against us?  Think, man.  This ain't organic chemistry.


So all this talk about the steel tariffs being good for the economy have been pure unadulterated bullshit.  Glad that is settled.  btw, it is in our national interest to have the ability to acquire steel for all purposes.  Currently, that includes purchasing steel from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Canada - all allies.  Because without these purchases, American industry would suffer.  They would not be able to produce the products they currently sell because their only sources for these special orders come from countries like Japan.

But hey, if you really want to go the "national interest" route, why not place 300% tariffs on cargo shipbuilding or offshore oil platform hull construction?  Because right now, we rely on countries like South Korea, Japan, Norway, and even the Philippines to supply them. 


Here they are again:


Mercantilism  is the concept of maintaining economic supremacy through surplus trade.  It is a fatally flawed concept that was disproved as a viable economic model over two centuries ago.  It is also going to be nearly impossible for the world premier economic superpower to implement considering that we are a service economy and that we don't have a fascist government willing to squelch out American consumer demand at the point of a gun.


That hurts them, not us.  But clearly, you are more into settling grudges at the expense of the American consumer and American industry.  Maybe if you play your cars right, we could revitalize the VCR business by placing a huge tariff on foreign imports.  Or maybe candles.  We need to revitalize the candle industry by protecting it from foreign competitors.  It's a matter of national security!


At least you have your priorities straight.  To you, trade isn't about growing the pie.  It's only about "winning", settling scores, and whining.  Lots of whining.  Whining because some shithole country like El Salvador won't by enough Cadillacs from the US to balance out all the bananas we buy from them.  And you have the effrontery to demand a level playing field with a country that can't  even provide all of its people with electricity and running water?

But you are glad to have a President who takes trade advice from Bernie Sanders.  That says a lot.

Last first as is my wont, hows Dat Hoodat?

Trade advice from Bernie? LOL Bernie is a Marxist, are you saying Adam Smith is a marxist?

Because Trump is channeling Adam Smith. You raise tariffs against countries with tariffs/barriers stopping your goods. I have posted the link, to Adam Smiths own words. If there is any "settling" the scores..... Adam Smith lays it out.

And no, it is not a pissant country like Guatemala. That is another straw man you try to raise.

Which brings up mercantilism.  Somehow you have mis-guided yourself to thinkin' that is what President Trump, or I champion. Mercantilism is what Trump is fighting against. Like Adam Smith.... open markets, or retaliatory tariffs.

Their choice. As we are on the short end of the trade stick.. we have the power to end their mercantilism...no one give a flying bleep about Guatemala... except for the peons they are sending this way.

It is not about stupid 300%... it is about free trade, and if not that Adam Smith/Trump goal...fair trade.

One cannot have an open market, when every other country ...yes our "allies" too.  engage in mercantilism.

Free trade is best, lacking that .... at least fair trade. Count me with President Trump/Adam Smith on this one Hoodat.

And count me with Adam Smith/Trump on keeping strategic industry USA. Maybe you are ok with Chinese/Guatemalan military components....me, not so much.

[Hoodat]

Last first as is my wont, hows Dat Hoodat?

Trade advice from Bernie? LOL Bernie is a Marxist, are you saying Adam Smith is a marxist?

That would be silly since you now openly admit that Trump is imposing tariffs for non-economic reasons.  Contrast that with Adam Smith who wrote his treatise entirely on economics.
Bernie, on the other hand, was in line with Trump.  But don't take my word for it.  Listen to Trump.

"We have one issue that's very similar, and that's trade.  [Sanders] and I are similar in trade."

-Donald Trump, July 2016-

[/b][/size]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article91841007.html

By your statement, it appears that you are calling Donald Trump a Marxist since he agrees with Sanders.

Because Trump is channeling Adam Smith.

No, he isn't.  Just because you happen to drop Adam Smith's name in a statement about Trump does not mean that Trump is following Adam Smith's advice.  If you actually read the statement by Smith from his book, you would clearly see that to be the case.  Because again, you openly admit that Trump's decision has nothing to do with growing the economy.

You raise tariffs against countries with tariffs/barriers stopping your goods. I have posted the link, to Adam Smiths own words. If there is any "settling" the scores..... Adam Smith lays it out.

I see you didn't bother to read my response the last time you posted that nonsense.

And no, it is not a pissant country like Guatemala. That is another straw man you try to raise.

Then what country is it that has been singled out for the steel tariffs?  Canada?  Mexico?  Neither of which have tariffs imposed against the US.

Which brings up mercantilism.  Somehow you have mis-guided yourself to thinkin' that is what President Trump, or I champion. Mercantilism is what Trump is fighting against. Like Adam Smith.... open markets, or retaliatory tariffs.

You were the one who said, "If the battlefield be mercantilism..so be it."  Adam Smith disagrees.

It is not about stupid 300%... it is about free trade

We already have free trade with Canada and Mexico.  Yet you complain because we have a trade deficit.  Sounds like you don't give a damn about both fair or free.

It is not about stupid 300%... it is about free trade, and if not that Adam Smith/Trump goal...fair trade.

Adam Smith was a free trader - not a fair trader.  Which you would know if you had actually read what Smith said.  Again:

Ultimately, protectionist tariffs, ones that seek to give benefit to local workers over a competing nation, have long term negative consequences: “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.”

One cannot have an open market, when every other country ...yes our "allies" too.  engage in mercantilism.

Why not?  They are only hurting themselves, not us.  Why does it matter?  We will continue to boom forward as a service economy while they continue to handle our manufacturing for us at bargain basement prices.  But as you have already admitted, you aren't interested in doing the economically smart thing.  You are only interested in settling scores and eliminating trade deficits - mercantile style.  Who cares if it puts 10 million Americans out of work.  The point is to punish those Canadians for making stuff we want to buy.  Like oil.

[kevindavis007]

I just don't think the Government should be picking winners and losers.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I just don't think the Government should be picking winners and losers.

Who do you think is the winner in raising steel tariffs and who is the loser?

[kevindavis007]

Who do you think is the winner in raising steel tariffs and who is the loser?

The American consumer is the big loser when it comes to tariffs. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Who do you think is the winner in raising steel tariffs and who is the loser?

Winner? Domestic steel companies and the government. Loser = foreign steel companies and American consumers.

[Restored]

Too simplistic. Other countries punish us to help their industries. We are just now recognizing it. American markets are the bread-and-butter of these countries. That's why they are having such a major eruption over it.

[Concerned]

Who do you think is the winner in raising steel tariffs and who is the loser?

When the President puts tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, he's benefiting the US steel and aluminum producers (picking a winner) and hurting the users and consumers of steel and aluminum products (picking a loser).  I didn't like it when Obama picked winners and losers and don't like it when Trump does.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

When the President puts tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, he's benefiting the US steel and aluminum producers (picking a winner) and hurting the users and consumers of steel and aluminum products (picking a loser).  I didn't like it when Obama picked winners and losers and don't like it when Trump does.

Trumpists are just the mirror image of Obama supporters.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

A tour de force!!!

That was damn good.  Points for @Hoodat and after finishing the thread...bravo.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The American consumer is the big loser when it comes to tariffs.

So you say the consumer loses.  So why do you believe the President is deliberately implementing a policy of picking a loser to his constituents?

Do you believe this is a losing proposition to them as well?  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,318336.msg1699555.html#msg1699555