Trump - 35% Tariff

I realize Trump was not completely detailed about this idea - but - it was my impression that this 35% tariff was NOT going to be for foreign made products - but reserved for American companies who went elsewhere with those American jobs and now want to bring those products back here for sale. There is a difference in that and ALL foreign made products from a certain nation.

**** no the max. Tariffs destroy the free global market that we as America fought so hard to establish.

Mycroft said:

LOL!!

You went from auto manufacturing to services jobs. Doesn't take much for you to move your own goalposts, eh?

Click to expand...

OK skippy, how many more UAW jobs are there now? I am simply pointing out that automation results in a net job loss - creating 2 "better" jobs to eliminate 100 "worse" jobs still leaves 98 without any paycheck.



UAW membership rose 1.3% in 2015

ttwtt78640 said:

OK skippy, how many more UAW jobs are there now? I am simply pointing out that automation results in a net job loss - creating 2 "better" jobs to eliminate 100 "worse" jobs still leaves 98 without any paycheck.

Click to expand...

Any tariff will affect manufacturing jobs currently overseas. Widgets, remember? As I stated, those tariffs will encourage domestic manufacturing and will increase job creation.

You countered that automation will limit such job creation.

I countered that such automation will, in itself, create jobs.

You then countered with some drivel about service jobs and related automation...moving away from the subject of manufacturing altogether.

When called out on moving your own goalposts, you talk about how automation results in a net job loss. The problem with that is that we aren't talking about jobs that already exist in the US being lost because of automation...we are talking about new manufacturing in the US.

In any event, not all increases in production from new widget-makers will be the result of automation. Some, yes. But the net result from the tariffs is manufacturing and jobs in the US that didn't exist before the tariffs.

I'd call that a boost to our economy.

Mycroft said:

Any tariff will affect manufacturing jobs currently overseas. Widgets, remember? As I stated, those tariffs will encourage domestic manufacturing and will increase job creation.

You countered that automation will limit such job creation.

I countered that such automation will, in itself, create jobs.

You then countered with some drivel about service jobs and related automation...moving away from the subject of manufacturing altogether.

When called out on moving your own goalposts, you talk about how automation results in a net job loss. The problem with that is that we aren't talking about jobs that already exist in the US being lost because of automation...we are talking about new manufacturing in the US.

In any event, not all increases in production from new widget-makers will be the result of automation. Some, yes. But the net result from the tariffs is manufacturing and jobs in the US that didn't exist before the tariffs.

I'd call that a boost to our economy.

Click to expand...

Wasn't the whole idea of NAFTA to keep US prices lower and thus increase our exports? What good is it to have more US jobs if they are filled by 11 million illegal aliens and we waste tax money paying (15% of) our citizens not to support themselves? I agree that eventually (perhaps in 3 to 5 years?) that some widget manufacturing jobs might come back due to tariffs but, in the mean time, widget prices go up and widget sales go down costing US jobs.

ttwtt78640 said:

Wasn't the whole idea of NAFTA to keep US prices lower and thus increase our exports? What good is it to have more US jobs if they are filled by 11 million illegal aliens and we waste tax money paying (15% of) our citizens not to support themselves? I agree that eventually (perhaps in 3 to 5 years?) that some widget manufacturing jobs might come back due to tariffs but, in the mean time, widget prices go up and widget sales go down costing US jobs.

Click to expand...

1. Cool...we have lower prices and less jobs. I guess that means those unemployed people can still buy stuff...maybe.

2. Illegal aliens? LOL!! You DO know that Trump intends to deal with them, don't you? That's irrelevant to this topic of tariffs.

3. "3 to 5 years"? Maybe...maybe it won't take so long. Americans like to make money and tend to move quickly when it's to be had.

Mycroft said:

1. Cool...we have lower prices and less jobs. I guess that means those unemployed people can still buy stuff...maybe.

2. Illegal aliens? LOL!! You DO know that Trump intends to deal with them, don't you? That's irrelevant to this topic of tariffs.

3. "3 to 5 years"? Maybe...maybe it won't take so long. Americans like to make money and tend to move quickly when it's to be had.

Click to expand...

1) Many of those unemployed folks are retired and living on fixed pensions.

2) We will see what Trump can get congress critters to fund. Another problem is determining the country of origin and getting them to accept the return of "millions" of our criminals.

3) Little in DC moves quickly, but we shall see.

American said:

I don't think anyone on this site knows what that tariff will do.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you don't want to know what that tariff will do... eace

legalimmigrant said:

You you going to volunteer to pay unemployment benefits of the laid off US workers whose jobs went to Mexico? If not, who will?

Click to expand...

What volunteer are you thinking of? We paid massive amounts of unemployment benefits when the 'invisible hand' drove the economy over that cliff under BushII. We paid YUGE amounts after the CEO's BushII claimed wouldn't ruin their corporations for short term gains did just that...

We are and will continue to pay for workers to retrain into more modern employment. We are leaving the coal/steel age into the information technology age.

Yes we could use some blue collar jobs in industry but increasing the cost to consumers seems regressive. The products made will cost more- no matter the source, inflation will threaten as the push for higher wages to pay higher consumer prices. That could start another stagflation cycle... eace

ttwtt78640 said:

1) Many of those unemployed folks are retired and living on fixed pensions.

2) We will see what Trump can get congress critters to fund. Another problem is determining the country of origin and getting them to accept the return of "millions" of our criminals.

3) Little in DC moves quickly, but we shall see.

Click to expand...

Okay. I think our conversation has run its course now that you are dredging up irrelevant details and such.

Have a nice day.

There is not doubt that the US is treated unfairly on trade.
Our agreements with countries that do not trade with us fairly need to be addressed,
but it is not something that can be done with a one size fits all solution.
We actually have a free trade treaty with Canada and Mexico (NAFTA) that waves all duties
on trade within the NAFTA zone.
To change that will require modification of that agreement.
Perhaps a better approach, would be to see what policies drove the the companies away, and see what we can do to fix them.

notquiteright said:

I'm pretty sure you don't want to know what that tariff will do... eace

Click to expand...

I do want to know, and I would hope that the Congress would weigh the pros and cons of any trade remedy. Nevertheless the Chinese have to be dealt with, as well as Mexico.

Anagram said:

No, it's not a good idea. I don't think he could pass it though.

Click to expand...

My answer is going to be a bit nuanced. China is breaking all the rules in regard to trade. They dump their products in the US, but our companies don't get the same kind of deal in China. So yes, I believe something has to be done. I just think 35% is too much, but any amount is going to start a trade war. So, in the end, I strongly believe that a trade war with China and other cheaters needs to happen, unless we want China to keep getting away with what they have been doing for years. At the same time, we need to impose a tariff on American companies who moved their headquarters offshore in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

As much as I dislike Trump, I have to say that he is right on this, except for the percentage being too high.

DA60 said:

Trump - 35% Tariff


A good idea or not?

Click to expand...

Besides the fact it's illegal at this point, contrary to the provisions of NAFTA and would be struck down by the those that are tasked with monitoring fair treatment under the treaty, if Trump truly wants Mexicans to stay in Mexico, one of the best ways to do so is to have a Mexican economy that can provide jobs to its people rather than have them cross the US border in search of jobs. You don't see Canadians flooding over the border into America - why? - because we have as good or better a lifestyle here.

CanadaJohn said:

Besides the fact it's illegal at this point, contrary to the provisions of NAFTA and would be struck down by the those that are tasked with monitoring fair treatment under the treaty, if Trump truly wants Mexicans to stay in Mexico, one of the best ways to do so is to have a Mexican economy that can provide jobs to its people rather than have them cross the US border in search of jobs. You don't see Canadians flooding over the border into America - why? - because we have as good or better a lifestyle here.

Click to expand...

On my trips to Canada, I have noticed many US products, but it seems Canadians seem to prefer Canadian products,
Perhaps Americans should develop some of the consumer patriotism that exists in Canada.

CanadaJohn said:

Besides the fact it's illegal at this point, contrary to the provisions of NAFTA and would be struck down by the those that are tasked with monitoring fair treatment under the treaty, if Trump truly wants Mexicans to stay in Mexico, one of the best ways to do so is to have a Mexican economy that can provide jobs to its people rather than have them cross the US border in search of jobs. You don't see Canadians flooding over the border into America - why? - because we have as good or better a lifestyle here.

Click to expand...

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

:agree: It helped our country when foreign car manufacturers built plants in our Southern States, which provided jobs at decent wages, while also helping their bottom line by having a presence here. I also note that some of our largest businesses are doing the same in Mexico, which are providing decent - comparatively speaking - wages for Mexican workers that they would not have had otherwise. If this helps stem the tide of illegals entering our country, that should be a plus for both countries because the after-tax profits are still returned to the parent companies in both cases. With so much of our infrastructure in need of repair or replacement, there should be plenty of jobs available for those who want to work, so that should help our Country's bottom line too! Maybe I'm a dreamer, but it makes sense to me. :thumbs:

danarhea said:

My answer is going to be a bit nuanced. China is breaking all the rules in regard to trade. They dump their products in the US, but our companies don't get the same kind of deal in China. So yes, I believe something has to be done. I just think 35% is too much, but any amount is going to start a trade war. So, in the end, I strongly believe that a trade war with China and other cheaters needs to happen, unless we want China to keep getting away with what they have been doing for years. At the same time, we need to impose a tariff on American companies who moved their headquarters offshore in order to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

As much as I dislike Trump, I have to say that he is right on this, except for the percentage being too high.

Click to expand...

If there is a binary choice between China getting away with it and hurting the American economy, China getting away with it is the preferential choice.

DA60 said:

Trump - 35% Tariff

1:00


A good idea or not?

Click to expand...

I don't know. On some front I do think that we should have the protectionisms in place that adjust costs against countries with poor labor and environmental laws, like China. I think that these forms of free trade, in some equal system of law and regulation, are good because it can really push efficiencies and innovation, but if instead you are offshoring production to places with near slave labor and no pollution standards and such, then you're not really getting any of that. It's in fact a bit of a regression because instead of refining a process, you just go back to near slave labor.

On the other hand, this would certainly raise prices of goods which would hurt the lower and middle class. And either you can stagnate there, or you can realize that real term spending power has been decreasing for a long time and move our own labor, which may be taking over from the off-shored jobs, to move into some real wealth gains. It's hard to say because there are multiple outcomes, and unfortunately you're going to rely on a Corporate Government to implement the changes which will pick one of those outcomes.

I say yes the 35% tarriff is a good idea.Although it should probably depend on the country.Because workers wages and a lack of worker and environmental safety laws costs differ from country to country.

longview said:

On my trips to Canada, I have noticed many US products, but it seems Canadians seem to prefer Canadian products,
Perhaps Americans should develop some of the consumer patriotism that exists in Canada.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with consumer patriotism, but part of that is related to the low Canadian dollar currently and the subsequent higher cost of goods made in the US.

polgara said:

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

:agree: It helped our country when foreign car manufacturers built plants in our Southern States, which provided jobs at decent wages, while also helping their bottom line by having a presence here. I also note that some of our largest businesses are doing the same in Mexico, which are providing decent - comparatively speaking - wages for Mexican workers that they would not have had otherwise. If this helps stem the tide of illegals entering our country, that should be a plus for both countries because the after-tax profits are still returned to the parent companies in both cases. With so much of our infrastructure in need of repair or replacement, there should be plenty of jobs available for those who want to work, so that should help our Country's bottom line too! Maybe I'm a dreamer, but it makes sense to me. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

Good afternoon Lady P,

Yes, you're a dreamer, but in a good way. Not many people displaced by manufacturers moving offshore are capable of or trained to provide services related to infrastructure repairs and new builds, and dollars should be spent retraining a lot of people who are willing to move into new fields of employment. There are a ton of jobs going begging in the trades - plumbing, electrical, engineering, machinery, carpentry, etc. etc. but we have to find a way to change the mindset of people, many young people, that working with your hands isn't menial or second class. A lot of these trades pay far more than the service/office type employment many of them seek.

Enjoy today and the weekend, for Monday brings us some cold Canadian air down this way and likely your way too - highs just above freezing and lows below. Frost on your pumpkin is coming your way. Have fun!!

cpwill said:

Heck, if refusing comparative advantage and becoming "self sufficient" and "producing more stuff here" is good, why stop at 35%?

Let's slap it at 100%, and stop all those dirty foreigners from selling us stuff that we want to buy at prices we can afford. Then we can be as rich as North Korea!!!

Click to expand...

I agree in part with your comment, but "comparative advantage" is a pretty ambiguous term. If China subsidizes domestic manufacture by allowing essentially unlimited pollution, poisoning workers, and/or by manipulating currency (among other state subsidies/incentives), is there a "comparative advantage" due to cost savings from those measures? Point is I'm all for "free trade" as long as domestic and foreign operations operate on something LIKE a level playing field. That's where the theory works. But I don't actually think that is the case for many of our 'trading partners.'

The other problem with globalization is the economic theory behind the benefits of 'free trade' really don't say anything about the distribution of the benefits. So what if GDP or whatever economic measure is maximized with 'free trade' if the benefits go to a small slice at the top leaving the average citizen worse off or at best treading water? I read an analysis in the early 2000s for a global think tank (lost the link with my last computer) that said straight up that there would be a lot of losers in developed countries and that to sustain the "benefits" of 'free trade' those countries would have to implement some kind of wealth/income transfer scheme, with several ideas on what might work. Negative income taxes (like EITC) was one option. Otherwise, the fear was that eventually the losers of a globalized economy would demand changes to that system, and unravel the alleged gains. It's one of the most prescient pieces I've ever read, and what struck me was the basic conclusion - that there would be many losers and no amount of training or education would undo the damage - was presented as just a given as if it was obvious.....

Anagram said:

If there is a binary choice between China getting away with it and hurting the American economy, China getting away with it is the preferential choice.

Click to expand...

Our economy is already hurting due to Chinese dumping and American offshoring. In order to heal things, we unfortunately going to have to endure more pain for a few years, but the end result will be a much improved economy, once manufacturing returns to the US, which should be the goal to shoot for. After all, if China decides to cut off all trade with the US, which is the worst case scenario, we will be forced to manufacture things right here in the US again. And we also have another weapon if China does go that far. We can give them the middle finger on all those billions of dollars we owe them.

danarhea said:

Our economy is already hurting due to Chinese dumping and American offshoring. In order to heal things, we unfortunately going to have to endure more pain for a few years, but the end result will be a much improved economy, once manufacturing returns to the US, which should be the goal to shoot for. After all, if China decides to cut off all trade with the US, which is the worst case scenario, we will be forced to manufacture things right here in the US again.

Click to expand...

Except that manufacturing will not return to the US at a high enough percentage to offset the jobs lost by the increased prices here and fallen international demand once retaliatory tariffs are placed. Especially since whatever manufacturing does get brought back will come at a highly reduced workforce due to automation. That isn't the trade we want to make. The type of jobs that employ cheap sweatshop labor overseas are the type that would be automated over here or if it's not yet, getting cheaper to do so every day.

The fact is whether or not we gain less than we would from trade with China then if they had the same environmental and labor conditions we do, we still gain overall compared to not trading at all.

cpwill said:

Is there a chance it would be net benefit?

Sure - it's technically possible. I'd put it right up there with "It's possible that hiking tax rates back up to 92% won't be bad" and "It's possible that we can have a deficit of $1 Trillion (+) forever without ever seeing any negative consequences from it.

It's possible. It just goes against everything we know about economics and is therefore not plausible. It's like shooting yourself in the face to cure your headache - yes it's possible that it works, but the more likely result is that you end up with a much deadlier problem than that which you were trying to solve.

Click to expand...

OK, but we had tariffs for a couple of centuries, and did OK, don't you think?

And let's say we actually had 'free trade' and free movement of capital across borders, AND both countries operated on a truly level playing field. As I understand the economic theory, the living standards of those countries with billions of smart, hard working people who aren't genetically or otherwise inferior to domestic workers would eventually converge either with ours dropping, China's rising, or some combination. We have a long way to go! And policy makers need to be honest about that and deal with it.

Put another way, I know of no economic theory that would argue we can indefinitely sustain living standards at current levels (or rising) AND "compete" with billions of people making a fraction of the real wages paid in this country. Sure, infrastructure and natural resources matter, our education system is better, etc. but long term I don't see how the U.S. has a sustainable competitive advantage.