Author Topic: US VS G7  (Read 55700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,327
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #325 on: July 02, 2018, 11:41:26 »

As for the trade surplus/deficit... who cares?


Hidden gem in all your reciprocal argumentation....apparently mostly so to Trump, hence his whole campaign to apply tariffs to force pure trade equivalency.  Everything else, including NAFTA negotiations are being driven by Trumps infatuation with complete bilateral trade equivalence.

G2G

*edit* - bilateral, vice blister
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 12:05:54 by Good2Golf »

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 586,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,515
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #326 on: July 02, 2018, 12:03:07 »
…. given that POTUS had been taking a hardline stance towards NK for quite some time.
Well, right up until he met with Kim Jong Un and started ovulating.    ;)

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #327 on: July 02, 2018, 14:04:00 »
He came out of the gate with a weak opening stance. It was that time, early on in his tenure, when PM Trudeau still hadn't realized that every small quip out of his mouth gets analyzed to nth degree and he said something that undermined his goals on a weekly basis. It took him far longer to learn that than most, and he is still learning how not to put his foot in his own mouth. With one thoughtless response, he opened the door to President Trump taking a hard-line stance and Canada being on the defensive in NAFTA negotiations. It literally plays right into the President's negotiating strategy.

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant to what PM Trudeau should have / could have done when first approached about NAFTA. Also not sure it's an accurate analogy given that POTUS had been taking a hardline stance towards NK for quite some time.

First off, the fact that *farmers* in the US want the gov't to give them their own cartel is pretty bad evidence that supply management is a good system. Exactly which profit-oriented person would argue against being part of a gov't enforced cartel support their business?

As for the trade surplus/deficit... who cares? Why can't people grasp that having another country's taxpayers pay for their groceries for them is a good thing? What other things would the US like to produce and sell to us for cheap? Please, open the flood gates already. Tobacco? Alcohol? What about inputs into businesses? The less money the consumer spends on sustainment, and the less money our businesses need for inputs, the more productive our economy is going to be. Once you take behaviour-controlling taxes out of the picture, it's just going to shift to industries where Canada is more efficient/competitive.

If protectionism is so good for us, why don't we put tariffs on the price of oranges. Make it $10 an orange so only Canadian oranges can be competitive in Canada? Why not sap the resources out of consumers and businesses, as long as they are only buying Canadian, right? POTUS wants to hurt his economy by putting tariffs on everything and making it harder for American consumers and businesses to thrive. We should let him hurt his own economy and citizens. Never interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake. Don't match his stupidity with our own stupidity.

Aggressively exploring other free trade deals is the real medicine here. That's why we've been doing it for years. If we have free trade with numerous other countries, we have more bargaining power and less reason to give a rip when the POTUS starts taxing the crap out of his own people.

We're in a thread that is purely speculation. Don't pretend anything else that's been said about NAFTA is anything more than speculation. I said it's a great bargaining chip because getting rid of it would help us anyway. I'd give it up for far less...
people keep say what trudeau shouldn't have done,  but don't say what he should have done instead.

He could have said no,  canada isn't willing to renegotiatate nafta, which is pointless,  because the USA would have triggered renegotiations anyways. He could have ignored it,  and been accused of not caring about trade with canadas biggest partner. And then,  when tariffs eventually got issued on canada,  he would have been blamed for not working with america on  renegotiations and thus to blame for NAFTA going potentially falling apart.

He could have caved on every issue, only to have america ask for more,  first dairy,  then lumber, then the auto sector.  Once america realized that canada could be pushed around,  it wouldn't have stopped at the dairy sector. I don't think the american president cares one iota about canadian industry having success, at least not more than American industries doing better.

So I would really like to hear what you think Justin trudeau and  should have done instead as opposed to what they shouldn't have done.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,266
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,529
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #328 on: July 03, 2018, 00:19:23 »
Hindsight is 20/20, but...

On Trump talking about renegotiating NAFTA

"I'm not aware of any trade issues between Canada and the US. Certainly, reducing tariffs and increasing free trade will benefit all businesses and consumers. However, given the current upswing in the economy I don't think it would be wise to insert uncertainty surrounding NAFTA negotiations at this point in time."

And on Trump putting tariffs on things...

"We're a country that believes in free trade, and that seems to be a non-partisan issue. Tariffs harm everyone. They harm consumers and businesses on both sides of the border. We certainly don't believe these self-imposed sanctions on US businesses and consumers are going to help anyone on either side, so we're not going to respond by adding more tariffs which just hurt Canadian consumers and businesses just as much as they hurt US consumers and businesses. We will continue our pursuit of trading relationships with all like-minded nations around the world. If the US no longer sees the benefit in free trade, that is their prerogative. I suspect they will realize they are missing out on a lot of opportunities for growth and positive relationships and will change their mind after punishing their own businesses and consumers."

Look, Trump is owning the frame here and we're playing right into it. We are literally only hurting ourselves by playing into a trade war (which we couldn't win anyway).
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 00:39:11 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 201,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,870
  • Freespeecher
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #329 on: July 03, 2018, 01:31:50 »
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal".

President Trump's position is no tariffs, no subsidies (announced at the G7 summit), but everyone chose to ignore this (as well as other US concerns). The breakfast summit where the topic was gender issues in trade pretty much sums up how seriously everyone was taking this position.

So the next phase (currently) is to push hard to knock people off their positions. The size and scope of the tariffs were deliberately designed to produce immediate pain and (as in the case of the German Auto industry) provide reactions between and within various competitors. While there is a great cheerleading section for the Liberals, is there any realistic way for Canada to come out with our position intact (especially given the 20:1 ratio between our portion of GDP based on US trade to their portion of GDP based on Canadian trade?). Frankly, it seems the elitist view of President Trump has turned around to bite us very hard in the behind, and the essentially offhand way the Liberals have approached both shoring up our internal economy (strangling oil pipelines, not intervening on behalf of free trade between provinces) or their approach to NAFTA (particularly attempting to insert their social engineering agenda into the deal) seems much like agonizing over what hat to wear as a freight train barrels down the track at your stalled car.....

While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 408
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #330 on: July 03, 2018, 05:49:56 »
From the way some of you talk on here, Neville Chamberlain must have been the greatest politician of all time. "There will be peace for our time" what a joke.

Giving in to a clear and direct attack on our economy made in a attempt to force us into a poor trade agreement is the worst thing we could do. The US is illegally (by the terms they agreed to) breaking international trade agreements. They will have to pay the bill in the future. Until then it is a waiting game.

In regards to the US free trade & no subsidies, when is the US going to stop subsidizing its own industries then? Until they are willing to do that there is no point in even talking about it.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 186,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,395
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #331 on: July 03, 2018, 06:29:02 »
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal".

President Trump's position is no tariffs, no subsidies (announced at the G7 summit), but everyone chose to ignore this (as well as other US concerns). The breakfast summit where the topic was gender issues in trade pretty much sums up how seriously everyone was taking this position.

So the next phase (currently) is to push hard to knock people off their positions. The size and scope of the tariffs were deliberately designed to produce immediate pain and (as in the case of the German Auto industry) provide reactions between and within various competitors. While there is a great cheerleading section for the Liberals, is there any realistic way for Canada to come out with our position intact (especially given the 20:1 ratio between our portion of GDP based on US trade to their portion of GDP based on Canadian trade?). Frankly, it seems the elitist view of President Trump has turned around to bite us very hard in the behind, and the essentially offhand way the Liberals have approached both shoring up our internal economy (strangling oil pipelines, not intervening on behalf of free trade between provinces) or their approach to NAFTA (particularly attempting to insert their social engineering agenda into the deal) seems much like agonizing over what hat to wear as a freight train barrels down the track at your stalled car.....

While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.

Funny how you keep bringing up the Art of the Deal.  I’m pretty sure those negotiating with trump have read it.  Right now it seems North Korea did just that and is using it to play for time, playing Trump like a fiddle.  So is Putin.

One of the main tennants of his book is to fight back.  Seems that is exactly what the world is doing...
« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 08:41:29 by Remius »
Optio

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,327
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #332 on: July 03, 2018, 08:41:23 »
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal"...

...While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.

But it's productive when Trump puts the very tariffs he says are bad...ONTO the table?

Which is it Thucydides?

G2G

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #333 on: July 03, 2018, 08:48:08 »
This is right out of "The Art of the Deal".

President Trump's position is no tariffs, no subsidies (announced at the G7 summit), but everyone chose to ignore this (as well as other US concerns). The breakfast summit where the topic was gender issues in trade pretty much sums up how seriously everyone was taking this position.
Your position is really rather weak when you say no tariffs, no subsidies, when you are among the worlds largest subsidies, have the highest average tariffs in the Western world, and have just punished you allies with more. Kind of like being anti war after you have decided to invade someone, abstinent while having sex. It kind of rings hollow.
Quote


So the next phase (currently) is to push hard to knock people off their positions. The size and scope of the tariffs were deliberately designed to produce immediate pain and (as in the case of the German Auto industry) provide reactions between and within various competitors.
And what you seem to not realize is that Canada, Europe, China, everyone is playing the same game as the US. The world is trying to knock america off its position with tariffs deliberately designed to produce immediate pain. And so far, it's working. America is feeling pain.
Quote
While there is a great cheerleading section for the Liberals, is there any realistic way for Canada to come out with our position intact (especially given the 20:1 ratio between our portion of GDP based on US trade to their portion of GDP based on Canadian trade?).
People keep pushing this false narrative. It's not a 20-1 ration between our economy. We have allies in this trade war, and they are hitting the USA as well, and collectively, us and our allies have a much bigger collective Economy and trade with USA. If this was WW1, you wouldn't be complaining that Germany is a lot bigger than Canada, thus it's better to not even attempt to fight, yet here you would rather Canada just do nothing while the USA attacks our economic interests
Quote
  Frankly, it seems the elitist view of President Trump has turned around to bite us very hard in the behind, and the essentially offhand way the Liberals have approached both shoring up our internal economy (strangling oil pipelines
How many pipelines have the liberals approved?You act as if it is none.
Quote
, not intervening on behalf of free trade between provinces)
what Canadian Prime minister has gotten the provinces to agree to free trade? What heavy handed approach do you want a Prime Minister to use on what is really a provincial jurisdiction?
Quote
or their approach to NAFTA (particularly attempting to insert their social engineering agenda into the deal)
People seem to be pushing this narrative as well. Do you hear the americans complaining about that? No. It seems for all intents and purposes that it got nowhere fast, and the Canadians dropped it as a negotiation point
Quote
seems much like agonizing over what hat to wear as a freight train barrels down the track at your stalled car.....
Again, not what is holding up negotiations
Quote

While it is true *we* have limited options, essentially taking them off the table before you start seems a ....counterproductive..... way to approach negotiations.
Again, more talk of what Justin Trudeau and Canada shouldn't have done, but no talk about what they should have done instead. It's easy to whine and complain, much harder to come up with alternatives.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #334 on: July 03, 2018, 08:50:36 »
Hindsight is 20/20, but...

On Trump talking about renegotiating NAFTA

"I'm not aware of any trade issues between Canada and the US. Certainly, reducing tariffs and increasing free trade will benefit all businesses and consumers. However, given the current upswing in the economy I don't think it would be wise to insert uncertainty surrounding NAFTA negotiations at this point in time."

And on Trump putting tariffs on things...

"We're a country that believes in free trade, and that seems to be a non-partisan issue. Tariffs harm everyone. They harm consumers and businesses on both sides of the border. We certainly don't believe these self-imposed sanctions on US businesses and consumers are going to help anyone on either side, so we're not going to respond by adding more tariffs which just hurt Canadian consumers and businesses just as much as they hurt US consumers and businesses. We will continue our pursuit of trading relationships with all like-minded nations around the world. If the US no longer sees the benefit in free trade, that is their prerogative. I suspect they will realize they are missing out on a lot of opportunities for growth and positive relationships and will change their mind after punishing their own businesses and consumers."

Look, Trump is owning the frame here and we're playing right into it. We are literally only hurting ourselves by playing into a trade war (which we couldn't win anyway).
Such a false narrative. Sure canada couldn't win a trade war versus the USA by itself. But we aren't in a trade war with the USA by ourselves. So why act like we are?

China, Mexico, the EU, Turkey, India, among others are hitting back at the USA. That a is huge chunk of the global economy making it harder or impossible for American business. Why can't we win that?
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #335 on: July 03, 2018, 09:22:30 »
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trade-war-trump-states_us_5b3abfaee4b07b827cb9ed7a

Quote

Several states that voted for Donald Trump in the presidential election are likely to be among the hardest hit in the trade war the president has triggered, according to the nation’s largest business organization.

A detailed study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce tracked the expected effects in each state of U.S. tariffs and retaliatory action against U.S. goods by China, European countries, Mexico and Canada.

Of the 10 states the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says will be hit the hardest by the tariffs, only California, Illinois and Washington voted against Trump in the presidential election. Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Ohio, South Carolina, Michigan and Pennsylvania will all take major hits thanks to the trade policy of the man those states sent to the White House. Trump won Michigan and Pennsylvania by less than a single percentage point.

The number of exports that could be hit by retaliatory tariffs among the 10 most vulnerable states ranges from $1.7 billion in Pennsylvania to $6.2 billion in Washington.

“Tariffs are beginning to take a toll on American businesses, workers, farmers, and consumers as overseas markets close to American-made products and prices increase here at home,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement Monday. “Tariffs are simply taxes that raise prices for everyone.”

The traditionally GOP-friendly organization, which represents more than 3 million businesses, has launched a campaign against Trump’s tariffs, arguing that they have triggered a trade war that will cost U.S. jobs and will send consumer prices soaring.

And that, my friends, is why you have to make it hurt for America to undertake these actions. When GOP friendly organizations start to lobby against the GOP president, that begins to get noticed.

When the states that the American president won start to get hit economically because of his actions(and Americans are not dumb, most articles show that people know who started this), that start to get noticed. The American president might not back down, but congress is probably hearing it from their constituents and they will be getting nervous.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #336 on: July 03, 2018, 09:34:15 »
And we can go on all day about how the German Auto industry is trying to surrender, but meanwhile, the GOP has lost the Koch Brothers.

Seeing how the American political system runs on money, that is huge.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44366737

Quote
Since Mr Trump's surprise victory, Charles and David Koch have sought common ground with the president, particularly on tax reform, but they continue to be far from ideological soul mates. Now, as the president bangs the drums of a trade war, the relations between the libertarian-leaning billionaires and the populist-nationalist president are becoming increasingly frayed.

It's not full political warfare yet, however. The advertising and advocacy campaign proposed by the Koch groups tilts in the direction of "friendly advice" for the president, not hostile criticism. When paired with congressional efforts to curtail the president's ability to enact new tariffs, however, and the stakes increase.

The Republican party has long been a welcoming home to free trade advocates, who point to the economic benefits of globalism and international competition. Mr Trump is trying to change that - but he's picking a fight with some very deep-pocketed adversaries.

If there is an ally the GOP doesn't want to lose more important than the Koch brothers, I would like to know who they are.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 186,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,395
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #337 on: July 03, 2018, 10:22:08 »
Washington will also take notice of this resolution by the WGA last week...

http://westgov.org/resolutions/policy-resolution-2018-14-international-trade/





Optio

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #338 on: July 03, 2018, 15:43:07 »
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-france/full-trade-war-threatens-2008-style-recession-warn-french-government-advisors-idUSKBN1JT10E

Quote
A full-scale trade war would likely be as devastating for the world economy as the 2008-2009 recession, warned France’s Council of Economic Advisors, a body which gives input to the country’s prime minister.

The United States and China could see a permanent loss of three percent of economic output and the European Union (EU) four percent in the case of a full-blown trade war, it estimated on Tuesday.

If it has to happen, let it happen before 2020 and let the American President need to campaign during that.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,589
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #339 on: July 03, 2018, 20:41:06 »
If I am correct about the election diverting Congress's attention somewhat from trade issues, then the approach I propose is an indirect one to exploit their interest in the former using the context of the latter.

Midterm elections generally don't favour the president's party, or a party which has held the House or Senate for a long time.  (Caveat: movement in the Senate depends a lot on which one-third of seats are contested.)  Republicans should get a boost from two things: the fate of the political balance in the USSC; and a strong economy.

So the course of action I suggest is not to fight an expanding trade war, but to cut those losses and instead wage an IO campaign among US representatives and senators encouraging them to recognize their deep self-interest in not having their economic indicators go down the tubes just before the election.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #340 on: July 03, 2018, 22:52:40 »
If I am correct about the election diverting Congress's attention somewhat from trade issues, then the approach I propose is an indirect one to exploit their interest in the former using the context of the latter.

Midterm elections generally don't favour the president's party, or a party which has held the House or Senate for a long time.  (Caveat: movement in the Senate depends a lot on which one-third of seats are contested.)  Republicans should get a boost from two things: the fate of the political balance in the USSC; and a strong economy.

So the course of action I suggest is not to fight an expanding trade war, but to cut those losses and instead wage an IO campaign among US representatives and senators encouraging them to recognize their deep self-interest in not having their economic indicators go down the tubes just before the election.
no GOP congressman has survived the president twitter blast.

They are all cowering. Their self interest seems to be limited to surviving the midterms,  and their nomination battles.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,589
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #341 on: July 03, 2018, 23:00:22 »
My point is that if you can persuade them to equate "fix trade war" with "survive nomination battle and midterm election" (ie. positive election impact of "fix trade war" > negative election impact of "oppose Trump"), then the problem may be resolved without successively widening circles of economic damage.  If the perception of "just give up" is unacceptable for other facets of this issue, it should be unacceptable for this one.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #342 on: July 03, 2018, 23:27:25 »
My point is that if you can persuade them to equate "fix trade war" with "survive nomination battle and midterm election" (ie. positive election impact of "fix trade war" > negative election impact of "oppose Trump"), then the problem may be resolved without successively widening circles of economic damage.  If the perception of "just give up" is unacceptable for other facets of this issue, it should be unacceptable for this one.
I have every faith in the canadians advocating in the USA,  the liberals, Rona Ambrose,Brian Mulroney, even Steven Harper.

 I have no faith in the GOP ability to stand up to the american president
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 586,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,515
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #343 on: July 04, 2018, 09:37:01 »
So the course of action I suggest is not to fight an expanding trade war, but to cut those losses and instead wage an IO campaign among US representatives and senators encouraging them to recognize their deep self-interest in not having their economic indicators go down the tubes just before the election.
I don't understand your cause & effect here.  If countries do not respond to Trump's tariffs with counter-tariffs (yellow), how would the US suffer economically (orange)?  What would an IO campaign be based upon?

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 951,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,757
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #344 on: July 04, 2018, 09:42:47 »
I don't understand your cause & effect here.  If countries do not respond to Trump's tariffs with counter-tariffs (yellow), how would the US suffer economically (orange)?  What would an IO campaign be based upon?
I'd be more based on the US bullying people,  which could garner sympathy across party lines. By targeting consumer goods in the US, life for the average Canadian just got more expensive, when Canada could have just mirrored steel and aluminum tariffs with little impact to the daily life of most Canadians. Its harder to galvanize support for your cause when that support has a price that is eating away what little disposable income lower middle class Canadians have.

It also looks suspect when our tariffs are carefully targeted at Republican areas,  making us look like we're trying to effect political change instead of get a fair trade deal.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 586,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,515
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #345 on: July 04, 2018, 10:12:05 »
I'd be more based on the US bullying people,  which could garner sympathy across party lines.
Your response actually gets further from answering the question; how would drawing attention to "the US bullying people" harm 'US economic indicators'?  Maybe let Brad Sallows address the original point.

Quote
It also looks suspect when our tariffs are carefully targeted at Republican areas,  making us look like we're trying to effect political change instead of get a fair trade deal.
???  It's not suspect at all;  our tariffs ARE carefully targeted predominantly  at Republican areas because we ARE attempting to effect political change surrounding these trade issues.

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,977
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,935
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #346 on: July 04, 2018, 11:35:45 »
And this thread is an example of why I see little value in engaging in such debates. :(
Except for J Man of course.  :nod:

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 126,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,596

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,589
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #348 on: July 04, 2018, 21:32:58 »
>how would the US suffer economically (orange)?

Tariffs are self-inflicted damage.  The steel tariffs alone seem to adversely affect roughly 10 times the number of jobs that they positively effect.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: US VS G7
« Reply #349 on: July 04, 2018, 22:50:28 »
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/04/us-pork-producers-brace-for-new-pork-tariffs-from-china-mexico.html

Quote
U.S. pork producers are about to be bitten by a second batch of hefty retaliatory tariffs from China and Mexico — and that has some large producers predicting they could lose big money and be forced to invest overseas.

Executives say the pork industry has been expanding in recent years, in part on the expectation of export opportunities that would continue to support growth. However, the threat of a trade war is adding uncertainty and driving fear. One in 4 hogs raised in the U.S. is sold overseas, and the Chinese are the world's top consumers of pork.

"We put a halt on all investment, not just because we will be losing money, but because we don't know if growing in the U.S. is the right move if we won't be an exporting country," said Ken Maschhoff, chairman of Maschhoff Family Foods and co-owner of the nation's largest family-owned pork producer.

Maschhoff said the farm industry has been "asked to be good patriots. We have been. But I don't want to be the patriot who dies at the end of the war. If we go out of business, it's tough to look at my kids and the 550 farm families that look us into the eye and our 1,400 employees."

Mexico imposed a 10 percent tariff on chilled and frozen pork muscle cuts effective June 5, and that import tax is set to double to 20 percent on Thursday. Mexico's retaliatory action followed the Trump administration's duties on imported aluminum and steel.

China, meantime, is scheduled to start collecting an additional 25 percent import duty Friday on American pork products as it targets $34 billion worth of U.S. goods in response to President Donald Trump's action against Beijing for alleged intellectual property theft.
In other news, Canada is set to over take the US as the largest supplier of pork to China.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.