Trade deals are complicated

<Bergs Words>

I don't mind you cutting my post like I did to you, and which I am doing again, because it's just necessary to do with the character limit. I don't agree with you talking about military casualty rates of Denmark when I was talking about the European Union as a whole backstabbing the USA economically. That just doesn't make any sense. As for a trade war leading to an us vs them, it is an us vs them. These tariffs aren't being put on because they are good for us, they are being put on because they are worse for them than they are bad for us. And in a trade WAR, not recognizing that one is in economic battle with the other side is dangerous. I don't understand why you call it a danger. As for GDP growth, go tell our unemployed workers and disappeared manufacturing, a key industry for economic health, that global trade policies have been good for them. There are competing interests within each country, and if one is preferred over the other to such a great extent, that harms all parties eventually.

On steel, the amount other products will go up is quite negligible, unless it's a major buy like a new car. Keep in mind that this will employ more people in the USA, so we'll pay less in social safety nets. Furthermore, steel is key to fighting wars, and so bringing steel production back to the USA is key to national security. We should never take for granted the peace we have, as war can always break out at any time, and it's rarely foreseeable. I'll pay the extra penny on canned goods I buy, and the canning company can keep the change.

About unemployment, what you and I were referring to were slightly different, although both about unemployment benefits. As your link states, max unemployment benefits vary by state. So the people of Mississippi have chosen to vote in leaders that have created a max weekly unemployment payment of $235/week, which is around $940/month. That is plenty to live on, especially in Mississippi, which has by far the lowest cost of living. https://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/ In Massachusetts, a state with more money and a higher cost of living, they pay $783/week, which is around $3,132/month. Again, plenty to live on. More is not necessarily better as there are opportunity costs of what that money could be used on, and there is philosophy about people getting comfortable on unemployment where they will actually refuse jobs to collect money. If someone doesn't make enough from unemployment, other welfare programs will kick in to help them out.

As for Sweden being one of the world's most competitive economies, the USA is #1. Sweden has it's own problems, too. Sweden is also less than 10M people and about 2/3rds the size of Texas. If Sweden had 325M people and 3.8M square miles, things would be a little different. Scaling is always an issue, and nobody has scaled better than the USA. From my perspective, it's an absolute joke for you to try to compare policies from a country smaller than Texas to policies of the USA. Sweden spends around $5.5B/year on military (https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/military-expenditure), while the USA spends around $600B/year (https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/military-expenditure). Sweden couldn't even fend off Russia, and the USA could not spend such a little amount on military. Sweden depends on American military might for protection, while Americans rely on nobody else.

FreeWits said:

<FreeWits post>

Click to expand...

Words have consequences that then you say it us versus them on trade and that they backstab you on trade it can hurt your relationship with your close allies in other areas too. Take for example Canada that they have been a very close allied to USA for a very long time but now are so angry over Trump’s actions and rhetoric that canadians have started to boycott American products. While at the same time it’s much easier to destroy relationships than it is to rebuild them.

"Across Canada, people are increasingly shocked and angry about the way the country is being treated by the Trump administration. They've watched as the U.S. has slapped steep tariffs on Canadian products, listened to President Trump harangue Trudeau and discovered the U.S. now considers their country a national security threat."

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/6235...-and-are-hitting-back-by-boycotting-u-s-goods

Also, as I said trade between EU and USA aswell as USA and Canada are more complex and for example involves regulations and subsidies. So, you need complex negations that are dependent on trust and cooperation’s to improve trade. Something that will be ruined by trade wars and a we against them rhetoric.

Also, I don’t think the big problem is that jobs have disappeared especially as you said unemployment is low. That the issues are more for example that its easier for thousand workers working in one factory to organize and demand good wages and working condition. Compared to thousand workers spread out between many small service workplaces. You also have business models today like Uber that makes it even harder for workers to organize.

Also, that in for example USA, the service jobs that have replaced industry jobs doesn’t seem to considered to have the same value. That it is for example public resistance to increasing minimum wage and other ways to increase the salaries and working condition in the service industry. There can also be lack of training and other help to make people be able take more qualified jobs.

So, this along with the last couple of decades neoliberal policies have lead to the gains from globalization have gone to the economic elite instead of the workers. Also, even without globalization you would still have the same problems from automation and robotization. So, you need to find ways that all workers get good working condition and salaries where find new ways to organize labor is an important key. While at the same time you need to revers the last couple of decades of neo liberal policies.

I think USA could have advantage too then it comes to welfare. For example, you could mandate on federal levels that every state so provide universal health care. While you then would have over fifty states that by themselves or by cooperate with other states compete to create the best universal health care system.

<Bergslagstroll Post>

Actions have consequences, and the EU is facing the consequences of protectionist policies that have backstabbed the USA for years. As Trump has pointed out, we can't blame the EU for looking out for their own, but we can respond. The EU is seeing our response now. If the EU wants to respond to response, EU leadership should know that I and many other Americans are prepared to sacrifice quite a lot to win this trade war. Are Europeans as equally willing to sacrifice?

The point about Canada being a national security threat, that excuse was mostly used for legal reasons. This is more of just political rhetoric by NPR, as not Canada that is the national security threat, but the fact that we have lost so much of the steel industry. If a world war hit, would we have the necessary steel production to fight that war?

Unemployment is now relatively low after a major recession and recovery, however, Trump's policies have something to do with that. We are going to need to keep our workers working, and we are going to need to continue to create jobs going forward. When we are at an $400B/year trade deficit with China, for instance, that means that a product that could be made in the USA is being made in China and then shipped to the USA. How well would Sweden cope with an $400B trade deficit? (https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html) This is a number you can't even comprehend, because Sweden's entire GDP is only around $540B. (https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/sweden) So Sweden's entire economy is just barely above our trade deficit with China. And then, we have trade deficits with other countries and entities such as the EU that result in a global trade deficit of $600B, more than Sweden's entire economy, and in 2006, it was $800B. (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2018/pdf/trad0118annual_fax.pdf) That is a lot of product being created elsewhere, which could be created here, meaning that's a lot of lost jobs.

You keep talking about unions. We have unions. I'm not a huge fan of unions, which you seem to be, because they tend to be incredibly short-sighted, and they often harm companies. The collapse of the automotive industry, especially in Detroit, had a lot to do with unions. Detroit has become one of the most troubled areas in the USA because of unions, and the workers, which could have had a pretty cushy life for a relatively easy job, ended up feeling the pain through protests and eventual joblessness. I don't see working conditions in the USA as a major issue. Working conditions tend to be pretty good. Unemployment, those out of the labor force that actually want a job, and underemployed people are much bigger issues. And sure, we are going to lose some manufacturing jobs to automation, but that makes trade reciprocity even more important.

You talk about the gains of globalization. The gains have gone to the "economic elite" because the gains are coming from investments, not from production. Not only are the gains going to the economic elite, they are also going to Chinese workers, as well as workers benefiting from our trade deficit with other countries. To help the American worker, we need to bring production back to the USA.

On universal health care, it's on the table. We are currently redoing our health care structure. Trump actually ran on single payer health care, but I'm not sure that's going to happen, nor am I sure that I want it (or don't want it). I'm open on health care. I'd prefer something creative to be honest. There are a lot of issues with single payer, too, and it's a lot more expensive as it scales up. You haven't acknowledged the issue of scale. In that, consider that Sweden has the natural resources that Sweden has. So when you sell those resources such as iron ore and timber and then taxes are paid on that, the money is split a lot less than it would be in the USA, because Sweden's population is so much smaller than the USA's population. That money can then be spent differently on things like health care, like I said before, especially when Sweden doesn't pay much for their military and depends on American protection. You can't expect the Sweden model to work in the USA, and our cultures are also different, where Swedes are much more okay sitting on welfare where the value of a person in the USA comes from what they offer. Job titles matter much more in the USA than in Sweden.

FreeWits said:

<FreeWits Post>

Click to expand...

The average tariff is less than 3 percent between USA and EU, so tariffs have very little overall effect on the trade between USA and EU. Also, many Europeans doesn’t see for example stronger regulation when it comes to consumer protection and food safety as protectionism, but instead see it as something that is important to get better, safer and more healthier products. There a trade war will strengthen the resolve to keep those regulations in the EU and you can see slogans like “we will never let Americans force us to eat chlorine watched chicken!”

United States - Trade - European Commission

Also, a trade wars will make it harder to negotiate and find areas with common interest. Like for example that USA implementing stricter consumer protection and food safety can be a win win situation. That Americans can enjoy better, safer and more healthier products while Americans products will be easier to export to EU and other parts of the world.

USA could also focus on its strong areas. Like for example that trade of service are almost even between USA and EU while USA maybe even have a trade surplus with Canada if you include services. Also, services can be more profitable and lead to more employment than export of goods. Because with goods you for example have greater costs like for example for raw materials and machinery. Also, an American product exported to Europe can consists of parts from all around the world. Also, that global trade is much more complex than surplus good and deficit bad, while USA also benefit from the fact that the dollar is the world’s reserve currency.

https://www.ft.com/content/1d8a46e8-2876-11e8-b27e-cc62a39d57a0

Sweden is for example the fourth best country for business. While at the same time 90 per cent of the workers in Sweden are protected by collective agreements and about 70 per cent of workers are affiliated to a trade union.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

The Swedish Trade Union Confederation - The Collective Agreement

Also, it was during the time of stronger unions USA saw greater incomes for workers and the middle class and greater equality. While the last decades of weaker unions have led to increasing inequality and stagnated wages for workers and the middle class in the USA.

Also, almost every industrialized country has universal heath care, both small and big and countries with or without a lot of natural resources. Sweden also had compulsory military service during the cold war. There Sweden today also have compulsory review for military service even if not all have to participate. While the EU countries together spend around three times more on their military compared to Russia. It are also many other ways a country can contribute to a safer and better world. Like for example seen in the good country index.

https://goodcountry.org/index/results#

Bergslagstroll said:

Trade deals are more complicated than for example Americans versus Europeans. Especially since tariffs overall are low today and you instead have more focus on subsidies and regulations.

For example, that you have both Americans and Europeans that see agricultural subsidies as a waste of money and gladly would give it up if the other side also did it. That at the same time the agricultural sector in both USA and EU is very powerful and will defend its subsidies. While you also have both Europeans and Americans that believe that the agricultural subsidies are important for food security.

You also have Americans that believe that federal, state and local Buy American policies is good and patriotic while other Americans sees it as a waste of tax money and willing to give it up in trade negotiations. While in the EU you have those, who think it bad that for example a public school can’t buy meat from a local farmer and instead must buy from meat from another European country because it is a bit cheaper. There those people can fear the same thing can happen with American trade deal. While other Europeans believe it’s prudent that government entities must by the cheapest alternative.

You also have many European big businesses that is lobbying for that the EU countries should give up their stricter consumer and environment protection policies as part of trade negotiations with the USA. While many Europeans citizens want to keep those regulations and fear that trade negotiations can weaken those regulations. While you have some Americans, who doesn’t see those stricter regulations as trade barriers and instead want USA to also have stricter consumer and environment protection policies.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that you are describing...from a trade point of view...the typical difference between those who want more and those who want less government control over our lives.

I fall into the "those who want less" camp.

Mycroft said:

Seems to me that you are describing...from a trade point of view...the typical difference between those who want more and those who want less government control over our lives.

I fall into the "those who want less" camp.

Click to expand...

Then why in the hell do you support Trump? The man wants to control everything and make the US into a "yes master" nation. The man has always been like this....

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

PeteEU said:

Then why in the hell do you support Trump? The man wants to control everything and make the US into a "yes master" nation. The man has always been like this....

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Don't bother me with your nonsense.

Mycroft said:

Seems to me that you are describing...from a trade point of view...the typical difference between those who want more and those who want less government control over our lives.

I fall into the "those who want less" camp.

Click to expand...

Things may not be that simple. For example, that you can Americans that believe that USA having less strict consumer and environment protection policies is a good thing while also supporting buy American policies. While you also can have Europeans that support stricter consumer and environment protection policies, while at the same time want to get rid of agricultural subsidies.

Also, the question if people really get more power and control over the lives with less regulations? Like for example that it will take a lot of time and effort for a person to check if hundreds of different products that she/he buy during a year are safe. Especially since companies spends millions of dollars on marketing and PR to convince consumer that their products are safe, even in cases there aren’t.

For example how lead paint was sold in the USA decades after it was banned in other countries.

"According to an American Healthy Homes survey in 2011, more than 2.1 million American homes have a lead dust hazard and a child younger than 6 years old. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 535,000 children under 6 with elevated blood lead levels. A child only need ingest a minuscule amount of lead to cause their blood lead level to rise, which can lead to brain damage, decreased social skills or even death."

John Oliver Explains How Lead Poisoning Goes Far Beyond Flint

Bergslagstroll said:

Things may not be that simple. For example, that you can Americans that believe that USA having less strict consumer and environment protection policies is a good thing while also supporting buy American policies. While you also can have Europeans that support stricter consumer and environment protection policies, while at the same time want to get rid of agricultural subsidies.

Also, the question if people really get more power and control over the lives with less regulations? Like for example that it will take a lot of time and effort for a person to check if hundreds of different products that she/he buy during a year are safe. Especially since companies spends millions of dollars on marketing and PR to convince consumer that their products are safe, even in cases there aren’t.

For example how lead paint was sold in the USA decades after it was banned in other countries.

"According to an American Healthy Homes survey in 2011, more than 2.1 million American homes have a lead dust hazard and a child younger than 6 years old. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 535,000 children under 6 with elevated blood lead levels. A child only need ingest a minuscule amount of lead to cause their blood lead level to rise, which can lead to brain damage, decreased social skills or even death."

John Oliver Explains How Lead Poisoning Goes Far Beyond Flint

Click to expand...

The day I start using a comedian as a fact and analysis source is the day I become a democrat.

Bergslagstroll said:

Things may not be that simple. For example, that you can Americans that believe that USA having less strict consumer and environment protection policies is a good thing while also supporting buy American policies. While you also can have Europeans that support stricter consumer and environment protection policies, while at the same time want to get rid of agricultural subsidies.

Also, the question if people really get more power and control over the lives with less regulations? Like for example that it will take a lot of time and effort for a person to check if hundreds of different products that she/he buy during a year are safe. Especially since companies spends millions of dollars on marketing and PR to convince consumer that their products are safe, even in cases there aren’t.

For example how lead paint was sold in the USA decades after it was banned in other countries.

Click to expand...

Sure. It's not simple. We need some regulation. We need some protections. But we also need a government that doesn't go hog wild.

For example, in the US we've had problems with our health care system...some of which was caused by prior government edicts. The solution...tell people they MUST buy health insurance. Tell people what KIND of health insurance they must buy. Punish them if they don't do it. Tell insurance companies what kind of insurance policy they can sell. Punish them if they try to sell anything else. Tell doctors what care and treatment they are allowed to use.

In other words...total government control over the health care system. No choices except within a narrow framework approved by the government. We are STILL suffering from the damage.

Mycroft said:

Sure. It's not simple. We need some regulation. We need some protections. But we also need a government that doesn't go hog wild.

For example, in the US we've had problems with our health care system...some of which was caused by prior government edicts. The solution...tell people they MUST buy health insurance. Tell people what KIND of health insurance they must buy. Punish them if they don't do it. Tell insurance companies what kind of insurance policy they can sell. Punish them if they try to sell anything else. Tell doctors what care and treatment they are allowed to use.

In other words...total government control over the health care system. No choices except within a narrow framework approved by the government. We are STILL suffering from the damage.

Click to expand...

Speaking of which, where is that health care Trump said we are all going to Love? All trump managed to do is make ACA worse with no replacement, while I was against the mandate the real fix/replacement never came about. Now if trumps goal was to drive us even closer to a National Healthcare system then mission accomplished.

Casper said:

Speaking of which, where is that health care Trump said we are all going to Love?.

Click to expand...

Ask Congress. Better yet...Ask McCain.

Mycroft said:

Ask Congress. Better yet...Ask McCain.

Click to expand...

They could not write a replacement that even Republicans could support and trump simply gave up, you were saying?

Casper said:

They could not write a replacement that even Republicans could support and trump simply gave up, you were saying?

Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying...in answer to your question. It's up to Congress...not Trump.

Mycroft said:

That's what I'm saying...in answer to your question. It's up to Congress...not Trump.

Click to expand...

Yet he tried claiming that he had a real replacement and was ready to put his name to their bad Bill and claim it as his. Problem is not all Republicans were willing to stick to the American People. As I said, if anything came out of the mess is it having moved us closer to the day when All Americans are covered under a single plan unless they want to pay twice as much, it more, for their own private coverage, so that is a good thing.

Casper said:

Yet he tried claiming that he had a real replacement and was ready to put his name to their bad Bill and claim it as his. Problem is not all Republicans were willing to stick to the American People. As I said, if anything came out of the mess is it having moved us closer to the day when All Americans are covered under a single plan unless they want to pay twice as much, it more, for their own private coverage, so that is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Nah...

The problem is that Congressional Elites weren't about to give Trump a win on this...even if it meant lying to their voters.

Mycroft said:

Nah...

The problem is that Congressional Elites weren't about to give Trump a win on this...even if it meant lying to their voters.

Click to expand...

Sorry but simply is not true the details of the Bills were out there for all to see and their plan was awful and would have been far worse than ACA or evrn what we had before it. Get ready for some sort of single payer plan or Medicare for all.

Mycroft said:

The day I start using a comedian as a fact and analysis source is the day I become a democrat.

Click to expand...

Even if Last Week Tonight is a comedy show it highlight important and often forgotten issues and have a good research staff. Also, the negative effect of lead paint is well documented.

https://www.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family-exposures-lead

https://www.news-medical.net/health/Lead-Poisoning-History.aspx

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...th-lead-poisoning-double-flints-idUSKBN1DE1H2

Here you can also read more about how the lead paint company fought regulation and prevented awareness of the dangers of lead paint.

"Since the 1920s, the lead industry had organized to fight bans, restrictions, even warnings on paint-can labels. It had marketed the deadly product to children and parents, spreading the lie that lead paint was safe. For decades, paint ads appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, Good Housekeeping, National Geographic, and other national magazines and local newspapers. Coloring books were handed out to children. The industry even sent Dutch Boy costumes to children on Halloween, and printed coloring books that showed children how to prepare it.

When public health officials in New York, Baltimore, and Chicago tried to enact regulations in the 1950s that threatened the industry's interests, lobbyists visited legislators and governors to get restrictions lifted. They succeeded. When Baltimore's health department called for the removal of lead from paint, the industry countered by proposing and winning a "voluntary" standard, reducing the lead content in paint. When New York City's health department proposed a warning label saying that the product was poisonous to children, the industry rejected the "poison" label and lobbied successfully for another label that simply advised parents not to use it on "toys, furniture, or interior surfaces that might be chewed by children," and deliberately avoided mentioning that lead paint was poisonous. It hired public relations firms to plan out strategies to forestall threats to the lead market."

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...g-parents-before-we-banned-lead-paint/275169/

Also a positive thing with Last Week Tonight is its in depth reporting.

"America isn’t exactly known for its lengthy attention span. News is delivered via Twitter (which enraged its users when the character limit was doubled to 280 characters), Snapchat messages last only 24 hours, and 85% of people surf the Internet while watching television, live-tweeting their reactions to their favorite series or awards shows. Venues for long-form journalism seem to be shrinking, except for HBO on Sunday nights, when Last Week Tonight With John Oliver dives headfirst into a half-hour of in-depth reporting, complete with comprehensive investigation and multiple sources."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/careyp...on-to-long-form-reporting-again/#3dd515e6657e

Mycroft said:

Sure. It's not simple. We need some regulation. We need some protections. But we also need a government that doesn't go hog wild.

For example, in the US we've had problems with our health care system...some of which was caused by prior government edicts. The solution...tell people they MUST buy health insurance. Tell people what KIND of health insurance they must buy. Punish them if they don't do it. Tell insurance companies what kind of insurance policy they can sell. Punish them if they try to sell anything else. Tell doctors what care and treatment they are allowed to use.

In other words...total government control over the health care system. No choices except within a narrow framework approved by the government. We are STILL suffering from the damage.

Click to expand...

I’m not an American so I’m not an expert on your health care system. Still it’s strange that you don’t at least have universal health care for children. Because children shouldn’t suffer for something they can’t control, the size of their parent’s wallets. Also, it can lead greater cost in life both for the individual and society if children doesn’t get the health care they need.

There ACA as I understand at least was some step in the right direction. Like for example that kids couldn’t be denied coverage because of existing conditions. While also that children could be on their parent’s insurance to 25 so they could get an education and start their career before having to pay for their own health care.

There it can also be advantage with universal health care for all. Like for example that people need health care for not suffering or even die. Also, the need for health care can also be because of accidents or genes so it can be outside the individuals own control. That at the same time people need to be healthy to be able to be productive and contribute to society, that without proper health care a person can instead need to live in welfare.

That at the same time American workers risk getting even more hurt by the Trump administration because of the lack of universal health care.