Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › How much damage will tariffs really do?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) How much damage will tariffs really do? (Read 987 times)
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 7,089
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #40 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:53am
Print Post  
Demos wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:40pm:
Protectionist tariffs haven't proven to provide either. And actually, the U.S. steel industry increased production last year (without protectionism). 


Why?

Quote:
 
Which we can do. Protectionist tariffs aren't going change this one way or another.


For how long? 

Quote:
We don't actually. 


I know.  I was just making a point about being beholden to foreign steel manufacturers and Canada doesn't sound very scary does it?  But would you agree there's a justifiable reason for a country to maintain its own resources?

I'm not getting at how much we need or any of that shit.  Is it a justifiable concern or not? 

That's the important thing.  Does it resonate because there's a grain of common sense at the center.

What I do with these threads Demos is try to gauge how much support these positions will have, and how 'sticky' the arguments are. 

Honestly, I know I keep saying this but I really don't care about this issue.  I'm just trying to get a bead for how important it's going to be.  Is Trump on to something that will benefit Trumplicans in 2018?  Democrats in his districts sure seem to think so.

Quote:
And the DOD (which handles national security) pushed back on that. The national security claim was bs.


Wha??

CNBC - Feb 22nd, Department of Defense says unfair steel and aluminum imports are a risk to US national security

In the memo, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said that the DoD did have some concern that recommendations could negatively impact allies, but that it agreed with the Department of Commerce's conclusion that imports of foreign steel and aluminum based on unfair trading practices were a threat to national security

And because quotes are important:

"DoD continues to be concerned about the negative impact on our key allies regarding the recommended options in the report," he said.

However, Mattis said that among the alternatives, targeted tariffs are "more preferable than a global quota or global tariff."

"In addition, we recommend an inter-agency group further refine the targeted tariffs, so as to creative incentives for trade partners to work with the U.S. on addressing the underlying issue of Chinese transshipment," Mattis said, in the memo.

He stressed: "It is critical that we reinforce to our key allies that these actions are focused on correcting Chinese overproduction and countering their attempts to circumvent existing anti-dumping tariffs — not the bilateral U.S. relationship."


And that kinda looks like what's happening doesn't it?  Refining the targeted tariffs, so as to create incentives for trade partners to work with the U.S.?

Quote:
We have plenty of capacity to produce steel for that purpose should the need arise. 


Do we know what the need will be?  Does the DOD?  Is that why they're supporting this move if even "mildly" despite your assertion to the contrary?

Quote:
Yeah, because the EU isn't anymore protectionist than the U.S., Japan, Canada, etc., et al. 


Right.  Because tariffs are already a real thing in play all the time all over the world.  True story we both agree on.

Kinda makes shittin a chicken about another one seem a little ... excessive doesn't it?

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Limey.
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 19,496
Location: the County Palatine
Joined: Dec 14th, 2012
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #41 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 4:40am
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:34am:
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it.  And that sure does look like the Democratic/Leftist take here in the US on why Trump won doesn't it?  It's almost creepy. 

Was racism really the only angle?  I mean I remember all kinds of them.  There was the free trade concern which I've already mentioned I'd heard that argument.  There was the concerns about unchecked borders and incidents like the Rotherham sexual exploitation scandal (Is it really racism that Rotherham voted 68% to control their borders?) 


Sigh.  See what I mean, about propaganda successfully conflating two things?


The second-generation immigrants guilty of the despicable crimes in Rotherham and elsewhere were from outside the EU.

Leaving the EU will have zero - literally zero - impact on Britain’s ability to control immigration from outside the EU.

It’s almost like the thick racists couldn’t work it the difference between ‘European Member State’ and ‘Pakistan, the former British Empire State’. 

Quote:
There were concerns that the EU was just the latest in a long line of people trying to "enslave" Europe ala' Napoleon and Hitler.  There were cultural clashes among the people least able to afford the problems ... (#2 indicator of a leave voter is after all individual/regional poverty, after #1 age/education)



You see I said ‘xenophobia’? And mentioned a lack of education?
Quote:
Do you think cultural clashes are racism?  Is that how we define racism now?  Is race inexorably linked with culture? 



Xenophobia....

Quote:
Why do you say only 33% tho?  Brexit won with 51% of the vote.  And they had 65% turnout.  That's pretty darn good for 21st century voter turnout in the UK. 

Quote:
Do the sums. What’s 52% of 65%?

It’s just over 33%.



Why do you assume the people who didn't give enough of a shit to turn up to vote would have voted Remain?  Isn't it more accurate to say 69%?  Why do the 17 million who didn't care to vote get a free pass?  What gives you as a Remainer the right to claim them as your own?


Well I make no such claim. I’m simply pointing out how many voted FOR something.

Quote:
Someday maybe we can get into it and you can educate me more.  My joke about being an American who knows all was just that.  A joke.  But until that time, the similarities to my crusade against arrogant, condescending, elitist Democrats keep piling up from where I sit Limey.

Queshank


It is very similar.


Doesn’t mean in either case that it has no value.

I’m trying to point out that the sneering at both Trump and Brexit voters may have roots in all sorts of unpleasant snobbery but, for sure, in the Brexit case it’s justified. The vote was about immigration. It was economically illiterate to leave the EU.

These are not distortions for reasons of bad-losership. 



It may or may not be a fair comment to say Trump voters are morons. I dunno.

It is fair comment to say the Brexit vote was stupid.
« Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2018 at 5:43am by Limey. »  

Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.

Under Communism, it's the exact opposite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lomelis
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

Wonderboy

Posts: 15,147
Location: California
Joined: Dec 20th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #42 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 5:35am
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 4:02pm:
So would you say that these are responsive tariffs?  Does that mean they're "defensive tariffs?"


Basically yes.  The perception is that well paying jobs of the 70's have been exported because of unfair economic advantages to various countries.  Whether because those countries unfairly protect their industries through tariffs or by subsidizing their own exports (dumping).

And these countries are doing a combination to a certain extent, but we also do the same thing.

Quote:
And can stagnant growth in the European economy really be seen as due to tariffs?  Germany doesn't have stagnant growth.  They saw a 6 year high in 2017.  France is seeing growth.


Not just tariffs.  That's not my argument.  Tariffs are simply one factor.  Just because tariffs might be a negative drag doesn't mean the economy can't overcome them.  Just like regulations or taxes.

Generally speaking if you want to have a booming economy then eliminate all taxes, eliminate all regulations and wage controls, and eliminate migration controls.  You allow complete freedom and then your economy will likely boom greater than any other.

Now that doesn't mean there wouldn't be other issues to address.  Nearly every economist recognizes this, for instance why the minimum wage doesn't get raised to 100K a year, or why regulations are considered to an extant to not put -too- much drag on economic growth before they are enacted.

Quote:
So it can't ALL be due to tariffs right?  I mean obviously Greece and Italy aren't.  But can we say Greece and Italy's economic woes are due to tariffs if those same woes aren't repeating themselves across the EU?


Right.  There are many other issues involved.

Tariffs are a leak, but that doesn't mean they will cripple growth.  Just depends how big they are and how many industries they effect.

If being completely dependent on ones own resources without trade were the way to go then trade embargoes would be worthless.  Countries like NK and Iran should be booming.  I know that's not what you are saying should happen, but that's ultimately the end argument. 

If protectionist policies are that good, are helpful to the economy, then it only makes sense to take it to it's logical conclusion.  That trade is bad for our economy.

Quote:
This kind of gets at the question I'm asking in the thread.  "How much damage do tariffs do?"  Can we quantify it?


They are harmful.  I believe it's impossible to say how much, an exact number of jobs lost, but there is plenty of evidence that they do more harm than good and Demos has already hit at that.


  

Ignorant Blessings from Wads:

Wadsworth wrote on Jul 2nd, 2018 at 4:13pm:
Watched it.  A shotgun is for long ranged shooting.  That is why hunters like them.  An AR-15 is not.  That video was misleading.

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lomelis
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

Wonderboy

Posts: 15,147
Location: California
Joined: Dec 20th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #43 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 5:45am
Print Post  
Limey. wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:20pm:
The reason Britain voted ‘leave’ most assuredly wasn’t anything to do with economics.

The subject was hotly debated prior to the referendum. It gained little traction because the arguments are so finely balanced.


As with ‘leave’ movements elsewhere in Europe, it was about ill-educated nationalism and xenophobia.


Before anyone like Stu leaps in, nothing to do with Islamic immigrants. Not an EU issue. Although propaganda was effective in conflating the two.


Tariffs as a reason to vote leave?


Absolutely, categorically not. 



You are ridiculously naive if you don't think it was about economics.

It is literally always about competition for resources as to why extreme nationalism and xenophobia takes hold, even if the people don't realize it.
  

Ignorant Blessings from Wads:

Wadsworth wrote on Jul 2nd, 2018 at 4:13pm:
Watched it.  A shotgun is for long ranged shooting.  That is why hunters like them.  An AR-15 is not.  That video was misleading.

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lomelis
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

Wonderboy

Posts: 15,147
Location: California
Joined: Dec 20th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #44 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 6:28am
Print Post  
Ulysses wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 7:04pm:
No, my protest is that you falsely claimed the following:

"And honestly, tariffs are a traditionally pro Democrat stance."

I pointed out where this is not the case. You dismissed that as historical... excuse me, but what does "traditionally" mean on  your planet?


Dick Gebhart resigned from Congess in 2005, and has been a lobbyist for US Steel since then. Small wonder if he supports Trump's steel tariffs (although I could not find any statements from him to that effect), and he most certainly doesn't represent the Democratic Party or the majority of Democrats.


Good Grief! You really have a knack for twisting other people's words and assuming they said stuff they didn't say! You are so full of yourself. I've already explained my first problem with your diatribe. I never said Democrats are not union friendly. I'm only saying that Republicans also court the union vote when it serves their political agenda.


There's little to nothing of value in your OP that I could take away.


Oh, you claim that was the point of your OP? It would appear your point is that Democrats "shit chickens" about anything Trump proposes. Which, since you claim some Dems support Trump's tariffs, means you have contradicted yourself. Bigly. That's a nice way of putting it. Lying like a rug is another way.

As for tariffs being bad... let's go back again to Smooth Hawley. In the 1920's, the international community got together and agreed to a multinational agreement to do away with tariffs. The Republican Congress in the USA refused to ratify the agreement. Instead, they came up with broad tariffs on most all imports. Europe and other regions had no choice but to respond in kind. When FDR kicked Hoover in the ass, and got a Dem majority, he was able to slowly roll back the counter-productive Smoot-Hawley tariff structure. But the other nations clung to theirs, perhaps because once bit twice shy.

Now if you want to press the point that tariffs are bad, you can't have a selective memory and dismiss past Republican tariff disasters while attacking Dems who express "mild support" for Trump's steel tariffs.


I wouldn't say that tariffs specifically are a pro-Democrat stance, but protectionist policies generally are.

The mainstream of both parties have moved away from tariffs as an effective means of promoting economic growth.   Occasionally some Reps or Dems have attempted to use the defense card for certain key industries as to why they are willing to hurt the economy (to basically win votes in the rust belt and get paid off by those industries) but it's generally accepted that isn't a good idea.

Unfortunately, like it or not, Trump is putting the teeth to these agreements by saying "screw you all, you're crappity smacking us over, we aren't getting any help from the WTO or whatever" (whether he is right or wrong, or even if he is actually doing anything about it's the perception and that perception looms large when he is constantly attacked in the media about it) and the only other recourse is unilaterally applying retaliatory tariffs.  The perception is the Dems don't have the balls to do it.

Perception is key.  Que is right about it.

  

Ignorant Blessings from Wads:

Wadsworth wrote on Jul 2nd, 2018 at 4:13pm:
Watched it.  A shotgun is for long ranged shooting.  That is why hunters like them.  An AR-15 is not.  That video was misleading.

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Greg55_99
LNF Bunker
**
Online

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Posts: 32,121
Joined: Jun 9th, 2006
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #45 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:53am
Print Post  
Queshank wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:59pm:
Awesome.  Sounds good. 

As it's being manufactured here in the United States, will they be subject to the tariffs?

Is it a smart move by the Chinese or a smart move by Trump to encourage these companies to build factories here to compete with imported steel?

Or a smart move by both?  Does it have to be zero sum?

Queshank


Here's the problem.  This deal was worked out in November, BEFORE the Trump tariffs were announced.  They are importing raw unfinished Chinese steel into the United States and rolling it here through US companies.  Now that is supposed to ramp up steel jobs BUT,  now that tariffs are in place, these people are wondering if the deal will go through since the raw Chinese steel might get hit with the tariffs making this entire proposition economically untenable.  See the problem?

Greg
  

"You want the TRUTH? You can't handle THE TRUTH!!"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Demos
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
*****
Offline

Hook 'Em

Posts: 20,843
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: Jul 13th, 2003
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #46 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:56am
Print Post  

Queshank wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:53am:
Why?

Because imports weren't the reason for the steel industry being noncompetitive (and they're arguably more competitive today since they output as increased). 

Quote:
For how long?
 
As long as we have a steel industry, which is really up to the industry. Their issues in 2002 didn't have anything to do with dumping, but rather with their legacy costs (health benefits, etc.) and their falling behind in technology (the integrated mills were losing market share to more efficient domestic competitors).

I suppose we could always try to nationalize the industry if it looked like it was going to sh*t.

Quote:
...Canada doesn't sound very scary does it?

Because they're not.  Tongue 

Quote:
But would you agree there's a justifiable reason for a country to maintain its own resources?

To a degree, and we have the capacity now. That ability isn't threatened.

Quote:
Is it a justifiable concern or not?

Not really, since our capacity to produce steel for national defense or any other reason isn't really threatened by imports. Just look at the hue and cry about China; we hardly receive any steel from them (10th or 11th in terms of imports). 

Quote:
I'm just trying to get a bead for how important it's going to be.

Politically? Probably not much. Bush's tariffs didn't have much impact politically, and this is just a redux.  

Quote:
And that kinda looks like what's happening doesn't it?  Refining the targeted tariffs, so as to create incentives for trade partners to work with the U.S.?

That's exactly what's happening because this tariff wasn't justified on national security grounds. Notice it didn't target anything initially; it was a broad tariff affecting everyone.

Quote:
Do we know what the need will be?

Assuming we're in a fight for our life, probably going to need more than 70 percent, which we can produce if needed.

Quote:
Is that why they're supporting this move if even "mildly" despite your assertion to the contrary?

My assertion was that DOD pushed back, which is what they did.

Quote:
Kinda makes shittin a chicken about another one seem a little ... excessive doesn't it?

Depends. If you're a steel or aluminum using industry, you're probably right to be quite worried about increasing costs as a result. If you're employed by one of those industries, you should probably be worried to.

If you're ideologically committed to free trade (as some of us here are), then you're pretty pissed.

If you're just made because Trump did it, then you should probably just get over yourself.
« Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2018 at 12:05pm by Demos »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 7,089
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #47 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:03pm
Print Post  
Greg55_99 wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:53am:
Here's the problem.  This deal was worked out in November, BEFORE the Trump tariffs were announced.  They are importing raw unfinished Chinese steel into the United States and rolling it here through US companies.  Now that is supposed to ramp up steel jobs BUT,  now that tariffs are in place, these people are wondering if the deal will go through since the raw Chinese steel might get hit with the tariffs making this entire proposition economically untenable.  See the problem?

Greg


Okay Greg, I was kinda flippant in quick one off responses to you last night so I could get to bed.  This is a fact finding mission and I didn't read the facts you shared.  I just skimmed them.

But I have to be honest, I don't know what you're getting at man.  What message are you trying to relay to me?

I think we're talking past each other. 

Are you giving an example of where the tariffs might do damage?  But should we be taking the second article at face value and pointing out the damage that will be done to workers in Kentucky and Alabama? 

I mean what are we to make of this passage from the brietbart article (/gag, I can't believe I'm saying this) which actually quotes another news article to give it some semblance of credibility?

“Every distributor who buys stainless steel is happy that he’s going to be able to buy from the Midland cold mill, via Brackenridge, via Indonesia,” industry analyst John Tumazos, the CEO of Very Independent Research, said, per the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s Rittmeyer. “I don’t think this deal makes value for Allegheny as much as it destroys value for the competitors in Alabama and Kentucky.”

(Because it's breitbart I had to confirm this ... I'm not stupid.  The link to original article here: http://triblive.com/local/valleynewsdispatch/12907676-74/ati-joint-venture-to-bo... )

If so is it actually damage from the tariffs?  Or are the tariffs preventing further damage due to foreign influence? 

What do you think?

Is this something you feel strongly about because of personal attachments?

Queshank
« Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:11pm by Queshank »  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 7,089
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #48 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:09pm
Print Post  
Limey. wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 4:40am:
Sigh.  See what I mean, about propaganda successfully conflating two things?


The second-generation immigrants guilty of the despicable crimes in Rotherham and elsewhere were from outside the EU.

Leaving the EU will have zero - literally zero - impact on Britain’s ability to control immigration from outside the EU.

It’s almost like the thick racists couldn’t work it the difference between ‘European Member State’ and ‘Pakistan, the former British Empire State’. 



You see I said ‘xenophobia’? And mentioned a lack of education?

Xenophobia....

Well I make no such claim. I’m simply pointing out how many voted FOR something.


It is very similar.


Doesn’t mean in either case that it has no value.

I’m trying to point out that the sneering at both Trump and Brexit voters may have roots in all sorts of unpleasant snobbery but, for sure, in the Brexit case it’s justified. The vote was about immigration. It was economically illiterate to leave the EU.

These are not distortions for reasons of bad-losership. 



It may or may not be a fair comment to say Trump voters are morons. I dunno.

It is fair comment to say the Brexit vote was stupid.


I'll have to pick this up with you in another thread Limey.  I'll try to start one in the next few days.

I just don't quite see how concerns about France and Germany taking over Europe is racism and xenophobia as you intimated in your response here.  Hitler and Napoleon were white dudes.  (Might have something to do with why the #1 predictor was age)

And I don't think it matters whether the Pakistani child molesters were snuck in thru EU channels or not when the issue is the citizens of Rotherham having control of their own borders, and one big issue is everyone involved was scared to profile and be called racist so they allowed more children to be molested.

And I think those are important elements of this discussion and where you are a bit vulnerable to criticism in your condescension and bile towards your countrymen.  Dammit I'm not trying to be harsh here on this.  I don't know English society and I don't know your background nor your personal experiences.  I'm not trying to be a dick.  I have been casting aspersions on my neighbors as racist pricks for my entire life, so trust me, this isn't easy for me to try to see shit from their point of view.

But yeah I know where you were getting the maths from: 

Quote:
Do the sums. What’s 52% of 65%?

It’s just over 33%.


I did the same sums with the same figures and came up with 69% racism.  I was pointing out that you missed a variable.  Why do the people who didn't stand up and do something about their racist neighbors get a free pass?  As Martin Luther King Jr stated once ... he realized with great sadness his greatest foe was the moderate white American who remained silent.

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Queshank
LNF Majority Leader
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 7,089
Location: South Dakota
Joined: Apr 22nd, 2015
Gender: Male
Re: How much damage will tariffs really do?
Reply #49 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:34pm
Print Post  
Demos wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 11:56am:
Because imports weren't the reason for the steel industry being noncompetitive (and they're arguably more competitive today since they output as increased). 


That's a bit of a redirection isn't it?

Why specifically did steel start to rebound as it was predicted to do the year before?  What changed?

I'm not trying to do any funny business here.  I honestly have no idea.  Your response might give me more refined research parameters that give me more questions.  But I can honestly say from the limited research I've done thus far the biggest indicators seem to be the shifting tone of the American political scene and its impact on the economy.

Quote:
As long as we have a steel industry, which is really up to the industry. Their issues in 2002 didn't have anything to do with dumping, but rather with their legacy costs (health benefits, etc.) and their falling behind in technology (the integrated mills were losing market share to more efficient domestic competitors).

I suppose we could always try to nationalize the industry if it looked like it was going to sh*t.


I'm sure someone will find something to try.  And like always ... they'll crappity smack something up.  The laws of unintended consequences.  But the thing I always try to come to grips with is ... the playing field is balanced as it is because of prior "trying something and crappity smacking it ups."

Quote:
Because they're not.  Tongue 


Heh.  Where's MFA so we can rib him?

Quote:
To a degree, and we have the capacity now. That ability isn't threatened.


First we have to agree on what constitutes a threat don't we?  Sometimes that takes a discussion.  Sometimes a debate.  Sometimes two different departments might have different needs and suggestions ... while they both call it a National Security issue ...

How many tanks we can create on our own in a sustained war is enough?  What if Russia, China, North Korea and the United States get involved in some shit?  Trump keeps his head very very far down on Russia.  My leftist brethren call that collusion and puppetry.  Sometimes it's not hard to imagine it looking like trying to defuse a powder keg the American left ...manipulated by foreign policy interventionists with a long history of crappity smacking things up ...keeps trying to ignite.  Potato.  Potatoe.  Do we really want Russia and China making common cause?

Quote:
Not really, since our capacity to produce steel for national defense or any other reason isn't really threatened by imports. Just look at the hue and cry about China; we hardly receive any steel from them (10th or 11th in terms of imports). 


How much steel do we need to win a war versus China?  I'm not suggesting there's a war on with China or going to be.  But what country doesn't plan for every eventuality if it wants to remain a country? 

Quote:
Politically? Probably not much. Bush's tariffs didn't have much impact politically, and this is just a redux.  


Are the pieces on the board the same as they were in 2002? 

Same moves?  Same factors?  Same variables?  Same economy?

Almost none of them are the same are they?

Quote:
That's exactly what's happening because this tariff wasn't justified on national security grounds. Notice it didn't target anything initially; it was a broad tariff affecting everyone.

Assuming we're in a fight for our life, probably going to need more than 70 percent, which we can produce if needed.

My assertion was that DOD pushed back, which is what they did.


I believe you actually stated the DOD said the claim was bs.  I pointed out the DOD said nothing of the kind and in fact agreed but said we need to be careful and not apply this too broadly.  Which subsequently happened.

But you're repeating the claim that the tariff wasn't justified on national security grounds anyway.  Why?

Quote:
Depends. If you're a steel or aluminum using industry, you're probably right to be quite worried about increasing costs as a result. If you're employed by one of those industries, you should probably be worried to.


I imagine the owners aren't ecstatic about it.  Sometimes owners dealing with monthly payroll and fixed expenses have a hard time seeing the big picture.  It's why like 90% of them fail.  Some of the workers seem to be pretty ecstatic tho.

I think I enjoy 538's podcasts more than any other political podcast these days.  They're realists and seldom succumb to TDS.  Their take just today: Trump’s Tariffs Could Actually Work — If He Has A Plan

But these risks don’t mean tariffs are doomed to fail; they just require a long-term goal that justifies the short-term cost in jobs and dollars — and a way to reach it.

This kind of targeted tariff helped save Harley Davidson, for example. In the early 1980s, the company was losing market share to smaller, more affordable imports from Japan. Bankruptcy seemed a real possibility until President Ronald Reagan agreed to introduce a severe protective tariff.


They've got some in there about EU's protectionist policies that are pretty relevant to our conversation as well.

Queshank
  

BowHunter wrote on Nov 30th, 2017 at 10:24am:
I am not aware of any article
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › How much damage will tariffs really do?

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules