Posted on 07/27/2018 7:34:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
And yet Trump has Europe discussing zero tariffs for the first time.
I wonder how that came about?
Europe charges 10% on our vehicles and we charge 2.5% on theirs. As long as we’re at a 4:1 disadvantage these economists don’t care. If we raise our tariffs to match, they scream that we started the trade war.
Where do the idiots learn this type of twisted logic.
The answer is in this: Small startup companies are known for taking bold risks. Large companies are known for being painfully conservative behemoths. The reason is simple. Startups have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And most of the time they go bankrupt. We mostly only hear about the ones where the gamble paid off. Large companies have little to gain and much to lose.
The rules for startups and large companies are completely different.
Same with countries. Also, the environment is completely different now. There is nowhere left to expand without pulling a Hitler. We play by different rules today.
No.
Nice article. It sure explains things clearly.
It’s not the first time. There was a tariff deal on the table that accomplished this and more, but Trump tore it up. It was called TTIP, but his fear of acronyms led him to dismiss it.
In the meantime, he got nothing. Europe was going to buy soybeans anyway. The ones they bought last year (from Brazil) now go to China, so the US ones will be the cheapest to deliver. LNG cargoes are not inter-governmental. The EU has no control over where a private company like Shell sends LNG, and they’ll send it to Asia, where the price is highest. Europeans use Russian pipeline gas because that’s the cheapest. Germany has no LNG terminals.
It was a complete cave by Trump, and a good thing, because his tariff policies regarding Nafta and the EU and automobiles are stupid. China is a different story. Listen to Lighthizer on China.
Good article. Thanks for posting.
We all adjust to the environment and that is true in economics as well. If something is widely accepted as true it becomes true to most even if there are reasons to doubt.
The arguments we hear today are based on a false premise that “free trade” means we don’t protect our markets while they protect theirs. Trump is turning that idea upside down.
Proud to have voted for Pat Buchanan in the primary against Daddy Bush.
He’s been right all along.
Of note:
Smithsonian Free Trade has never existed in the history of the nation-state. Never. Yet we have millions of adherents.
How can that be?
And how is it that most of them are Republicans?
Are Republicans stupid?
I’ve said this before: Trump is carrying out the Buchanan presidency that we didn’t have in the 1990’s.
Drain the swamp (in the context of Bob Torricelli and the House post office scandal), America First slogans, tariffs, immigration reform. All signature issues Pat brought forward.
Free trade is great for the consumer side of us but not for the producer side of us.
Each one of us is simultaneously both a consumer and a producer, but before we can consume we first must produce.
Without an income from a job you can forget about consumption, regardless how cheap prices are.
A few observstions:
1. Lots is protectionist countries never became great. Argentina is an example.
2. Protestant moral virtues, respect for private property, and work ethic surely had something to do with our success.
They charge 10% tariffs on our vehicles and we charge 2.5% on their’s.
What part of that makes sense to you?
Rather than dumping on Trump for not agreeing to that deal, why don’t you spend more time trying to figure out why he didn’t agree to it?
If it would have accomplished his goals, why wouldn’t he sign it and then claim credit for having done so?
Agreed.
I fail to see the legitimacy of handwringing over tariffs as Trump appears to be using them.
A no-tariff environment is the best, most people agree.
And permanent tariffs are not desirable, when used to make up for an inherent inequality in a formerly tariff-free sector to protect that native sector, most people agree.
But in a case of economic warfare, where your foe is charging a 10% tariff on your goods, and their goods have no tariff coming here, what should be done? Just sit back and take it, as the USA has since the end of WWII?
Tariffs are a weapon in that war, and like all weapons, should be used if needed.
Absolutely.
I have no problem with tariffs up to 2.5% anyway, since we have certain government administrative costs.
Yes. Anyone who studies US history knows that.
No, we charge 25% on theirs. And we will get no tariff reductions from them unless we remove the chicken tax on pickup trucks.
When did the 25% start?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.