Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Will Trump’s Steel Tariff Keep Rust Belt Red in 2018 and 2020?

Will Trump’s Steel Tariff Keep Rust Belt Red in 2018 and 2020?

“we’ve been trying to get Democrats to do this for more than 30 years”

https://youtu.be/Rd2mei3rppc

In a recent post, my colleague Mary Chastain noted that when Trump signed the steel and aluminum tariffs, he was surrounded by American steel workers. For Trump, this was largely about keeping a campaign promise to American workers, but it could also serve him and Republicans well in the next two big elections.

Rush Limbaugh noted the political implications:

Democrat Nightmare! Steelworkers at Tariff Signing

RUSH: The tariffs, the tariffs that Trump has announced yesterday. Exactly as I said, they’re negotiable from country to country. They were aimed, and Mexico and Canada were exempted in exchange for new negotiations on NAFTA. Trump had some steelworkers in the White House yesterday. I watched it. I said, “This would never happen…

“I can’t imagine this happening with any other president. She’s been showed up, and they looked like steelworkers. They looked like Steelers fans. They looked like who they are,” and the United Steelworkers international president Leo Gerard was there. He was among them. He said, “Trump was able to see the steelworker agenda, what [Trump] did is what we’ve been fighting for for more than 30 years. … [W]hat makes me sad is we’ve been trying to get Democrats to this for more than 30 years.”

And then Trump tweeted the following: “The workers who poured their souls into building this great nation were betrayed. But that betrayal is now over. … I’m delivering on a promise I made during the campaign.” This sent shockwaves through Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, states the Democrats thinks they’re gonna win back with ease. Shock waves are once again reverberating through what everybody used to believe were deep-blue states.

United Steelworkers international president Leo Gerard, who Rush mentioned above, was recently on NBC News and talked about how his organization tried to get previous administrations to do this. If you want to know how bad this is for Democrats, just take note of Chuck Todd’s condescending tone.

Here are some details via Real Clear Politics:

United Steelworkers’ Leo Gerard: Members Won’t Forget What Trump Did, He Stopped Wealth Transfer

In an interview with a combative Chuck Todd, Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworks, praised the effect of President Trump’s newly proclaimed tariffs would have on the U.S. steel market. Gerard praised Trump for making it clear he is going to “tackle trade deficits” which he called a “wealth transfer” because they are “taking good jobs away.”…

Gerard said Trump was able to “see the steelworker agenda” and “he’s going to have a major impact on our members” with what he has done.

“It’s going to make it very hard for our members to ignore what he just did and what makes me sad is we’ve been trying to get Democrats to this for more than 30 years,” Gerard told Todd.

Gerard said Trump is finally “going to help us get a level playing field” after 20 years of promises from Democratic and Republican presidents. While unions are notoriously large supporters of Democrats, Gerard said Trump’s administration has recognized that if the next 20 years are like the last 20 years then “we have a national security problem.” Gerard made it clear his union will work with the administration to prioritize U.S.-made steel.

Watch the segment below:

Trump is a builder at heart and this is an area he knows more about than previous presidents. Keeping his campaign promises to stand by American workers is not only good policy, it’s smart politics.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Trade unions are actually “globalists”. Look it up.

People who believe in market economics are simply people who love liberty and understand the “magic” that markets produce.

4th armored div | March 11, 2018 at 10:30 am

if you do not have a steel, energy, mining industry then you are reliant on and subject to boycotts at especially crucial times.

politicians nowadays are oblivious to these facts.

you don’t have these industries, you don’t have an independent country.

#MAGA, Keep America GREAT and free.

    Ragspierre in reply to 4th armored div. | March 11, 2018 at 10:35 am

    We DO have mining, steel production, and energy. WTF are you gassing about here?

    How much steel does Israel produce?

    You are just aping Duh Donald’s lies. There is NO “national security” component to his BIG GOVERNMENT action. How can you know this for yourself?

      Shane in reply to Ragspierre. | March 11, 2018 at 10:48 am

      Could you be a bigger douchebag. FFS stop the personal attacks because you make yourself utterly irrelevant even if you are on the “right” side.

        Ragspierre in reply to Shane. | March 11, 2018 at 10:52 am

        What? I said “gassing”.

        Self-parody, thy name is Shane.

          Shane in reply to Ragspierre. | March 11, 2018 at 10:58 am

          Douchebag thy name is Ragspierre. Down another you fucking asshole, maybe that one will either put you in rehab or kill you, either way a win for the world.

          C. Lashown in reply to Ragspierre. | March 11, 2018 at 12:56 pm

          Rags, did you have a slow night driving cab? Someone puke in the back seat and you had to clean it up?

          Take it easy dude, next week you might get lucky and a hooker shares a free ride with you – see the clinic if she does!

        MarkSmith in reply to Shane. | March 11, 2018 at 7:04 pm

        “right” side? I think I missed that.

    We were at the mercy of the Saudi’s in oil, now look. When another country subsidizes it’s industries it does two things it makes their industry inefficient and stultified, and it takes money from their tax payers and gives a portion of that money to the customers of the subsidized industry. Neither one of these things helps the country doing this.

    BUT the funny thing about markets is that even with insane subsidies the subsidizing country can never truly wipe out the domestic producer AND the artificially low prices encourage innovation in the subsidized industry AND in other areas that use the subsidized product.

    Mostly I see this as rent seeking from the steel and aluminum industries. I also see the market going right around this stupid shit as it always does, so meh.

    Firewatch in reply to 4th armored div. | March 11, 2018 at 12:46 pm

    Rags doesn’t remember OPEC and the oil embargo.

      Ragspierre in reply to Firewatch. | March 11, 2018 at 9:32 pm

      What makes you suggest that lie?

      I remember it quite well. I also remember what really caused a dirth of oil and gasoline in the U.S.

      It was BIG GOVERNMENT tinkering with market economics. When that stopped, we had what we needed.

      Markets are “magic” like that.

The one part of this American steel saga is true, cheap imports have been dumped here but also some imported steel has come above board and properly due to high prices of domestic steel. Don’t forget that during the 1950s and 1960s, United Steel Workers Unions began demanding and getting heavy wage and benefit concessions from the steel companies. Union officials got fat as a result. When foreign makers began to come online post WW2 recovery, they were lean and efficient which caught our makers fat, slow and over indulged. This is equally the reason our steel industry went near dormant.

The scene of steel workers showing up on camera at the WH makes good tv PR, but the Unions showing up too is just irony. Something like hungry men attending an all you can eat buffet…and each man brings his own tape worm. I hope the workers don’t fall dumb again and gradually give the unions the boot.

    Ragspierre in reply to Whitewall. | March 11, 2018 at 10:38 am

    Management guru Peter Drucker related the story of touring a steel plant and having to get around “workers” sleeping on catwalks. It taught him some things about unions and competitiveness.

    Shane in reply to Whitewall. | March 11, 2018 at 11:00 am

    American car manufactures show that the unions are pretty safe unfortunately.

      MarkSmith in reply to Shane. | March 11, 2018 at 7:02 pm

      Especially when the boneheads bailed them out in 2008 instead of letting them reorg in to more leaner/smarter companies.

The Real Protectionism: Defending DC’s Crony Globalist Fake ‘Free Trade’

President Donald Trump wants to fix the nightmare mess that is DC’s crony globalist fake “free trade” – and conservatives all across the nation are up in arms.

A lot of really great conservative thinkers are very, very angry with Trump’s tariff threat.

And as much as I like and respect so very many of these conservative thinkers – they are all very, very wrong.

A lot of what you get from them is a lot of talking points – spewed in Tourette’s Syndrome fashion. “Tariffs are taxes!” “Protectionism is bad!” “Free trade is good!”

The very obvious secret is I agree with all of these points.

The other very obvious secret is none of them apply to what DC pretends is “free trade.”

Globalist big business robber barons have spent the last half-century-plus lobbying DC for more and more one-sided, America-last trade deals in which America removes all of our government impediments – tariffs, domestic subsidies, import caps, etc. – to our world’s-largest now-$18-trillion-per-year economy. This thereby allows the unfettered flow of goods and services from all round the world.

We have done absolutely nothing about the very many government impediments – tariffs, domestic subsidies, import caps, etc. – that just about every other nation imposes upon us, severely limiting the flow of our goods and services into their relatively paltry markets.
This has been one long, ongoing trade war declared and engaged in by every nation on the planet – except the U.S., and one incessantly long run of titanically stupid trade policy. This is Mike Tyson in his prime – negotiating away each round of his fight with…the head of the Chess Club.

We are the biggest economy on the planet and we’ve been negotiating like we’re Somalia.

These terrible deals have been a key component in our nation’s loss of millions and millions of jobs. And the loss of who should be key allies in the fight for less government domestically.

Rather than fight for less government domestically – thereby making it more tenable to remain in the States – the globalist big business robber barons flipped the script.

They got DC to emplace ever more America-last trade deals – and then moved their businesses to the countries from which they had just negotiated unfettered access to our economy, costing us millions of gigs and escaping all of our stupid domestic government – and all of the government impediments the other countries emplace upon U.S. exports.

Meanwhile, America’s small businesses – which can’t move overseas – have to stay here and get pummeled by ever-expanding domestic government and the relocated-globalist-big-business-robber-baron subsidized-and-protectionism-protected goods and services – being brought in unfettered to compete against them.

So until someone amongst the many contesting conservatives acknowledges there actually is a HUGE problem – I’ll be siding with the guy who knows there is, and is looking to address it.

https://townhall.com/columnists/setonmotley/2018/03/06/the-real-protectionism-defending-dcs-crony-globalist-fake-free-trade-n2458113

    Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 11, 2018 at 10:50 am

    ***A lot of what you get from them is a lot of talking points – spewed in Tourette’s Syndrome fashion. “Tariffs are taxes!” “Protectionism is bad!” “Free trade is good!”

    The very obvious secret is I agree with all of these points.***

    BUT “robber-barrons” who “lobby”.

    So the solution is to screw the American consumer…!?!? WITH more lobbied special interest-induced BIG GOVERNMENT…???

    Wow. That just makes TOTS good sense. To say nothing of the effects on individual liberty.

      VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 11, 2018 at 11:27 am

      On tariffs, Adam Smith describes a case when tariffs are appropriate:

      “The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain reign goods, is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours. Nations accordingly seldom fail to retaliate in this manner.”

      There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.”

      It seems that Trump is applying tariffs in the manner Smith describes – to change behavior. Changes in behavior will lead to reductions in the tariffs we apply.

      It seems a better policy that continuing to screw the American workers who happen to be in industries targeted by foreign tariffs – which is what has been happening for decades. When it comes to tariffs, ‘reciprocal’ is a key concept. The simplistic models of ECON 101 assume a level field.

        4th armored div in reply to VaGentleman. | March 11, 2018 at 12:09 pm

        you’re correct, in addition, not everyone is university material or has the finances to pay for it.

        HS and Trade schools train those with ability to do electrical, plumbing and similar jobs that pay household, and ability to build families wages.

        The promises that DJT made to these heads of families in the rust belt states and is now keeping could only happen when a non politician is elected – ‘Mr smith goes to Washington’!

        Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 11, 2018 at 9:08 pm

        “There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of.”

        “There MAY be…”

        American history with tariffs has instructed us that that opposite is the case. Tariffs in both the Bush and Barracula eras were net job losers, and they cost the U.S. economy billions in the net, as well.

        You’d have to understand Econ 101 before you could comment on it. Intelligently.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 8:54 am

          To a #NTer like you, Trump’s glass is always half empty. Your anti Trump biases determine the answer before the question is asked or the matter decided. You only look for (cherry pick) supportive data. “May’ also means that he could succeed. Trump has shown that he is a lot smarter than GWB or Obama, so it’s possible. If so, America wins. Sadly, that would piss you off, wouldn’t it? To have to admit you were wrong? You won’t do it, any more than you will admit that he was a far better choice than Hillary, and that America won by electing him.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:06 am

          If ANY-FLUCKING-BODY proposed this central planning crap, I’d be violently opposed to it, you lying old nutter.

          And, again, liar, you know I’ve credited Duh Donald with some things.

          That’s because I am a conservative, and I hold to principles.

          You, on the other hand, are just another slobbering cultist.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:11 am

          ***A lot of what you get from them is a lot of talking points – spewed in Tourette’s Syndrome fashion. “Tariffs are taxes!” “Protectionism is bad!” “Free trade is good!”

          The very obvious secret is I agree with all of these points.***

          From YOUR “authority”, cultist.

          I don’t have to “cherry-pick”. History is what it is. Economic reality is what IT is. Your hatred for anyone controverting your man-crush is what it is. Disgusting slavishness.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 10:46 am

          Oh, and one more point…

          ANY policy that is sold on a set of lies (see ObamaCare) is corrupt at its core.

          Duh Donald told one lie after another to justify this central planning bullshit. Starting with “we lose 800 billion dollars a year”. We actually realize MORE from that dollar expenditure than we spend. But the lies didn’t end there…

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:15 pm

          rags rote:
          And, again, liar, you know I’ve credited Duh Donald with some things.

          It’s a lie to say that you have credited him. What you have done is acknowledge reality, and then only when you are forced to. Acknowledging the fact that his judicial appointments are good is simply stating the obvious. Giving credit means that your view of him changes for the better. If you actually gave him credit, your opinion of him would change. That never happens. If it did, you could answer the question: Is he better than Hillary?

          That you think you deserve credit for simply acknowledging reality shows how delusional you are. That climbing out of your fantasy to reality is hard work worthy of merit.

          rags rote:

          The very obvious secret is I agree with all of these points.***

          From YOUR “authority”, cultist.

          I don’t have to “cherry-pick”.

          You left off the very next line:
          The other very obvious secret is none of them apply to what DC pretends is “free trade.”

          You are a cherry pricker. LMAO!!

The mere presence of Trump pushes the extremes, left and right, further apart. To me, it looks like Trump is building a new Republican party based on capturing the center that is fed up with the extremists on both sides. He started this with the victories in MI, PA, etc., and continues it with the tariff policy. And the jobs are coming back, solidifying him with the unions. The extreme left answers with more extreme versions of the policies that led to the problem and further alienate the dem voters who elected Trump. As they move left, Trump looks more reasonable. The conservative #NT crowd is weakened by the conservative elements of his governance. More of them will support him in 2020 than did in 16. Those who supported him in 16 are basically happy with what’s happening now. They will accept DACA if they actually get border control. And he has made the dems the bad guys in the fight, hurting them in the latino community.

So, if he is correct, he stands to gain a little from the far right, he keeps those who supported him in 16, and he has a chance for big gains from the center left. He has already gone after the union vote, with what looks like success. He’s working on the latino vote. It will be interesting to see if he makes a major push for the black vote. If he does it right, the dems are really vulnerable there.

    Tom Servo in reply to VaGentleman. | March 11, 2018 at 1:27 pm

    I think you’ve got the situation nailed! That’s what’s got spastic never-Trumpers like Rags putting their Tourette’s syndrome into overdrive these days; people like him figure that if they just shriek louder and louder and set their hair on fire while nailing one foot to the floor, somehow magically people will start paying attention to them.

    I do feel sorry for them, really – the only fun they get out of life is throwing dollar bills at Stormy Daniels while she’s up on the stage.

Back in the 1990s globalism became the dominant political goal for this country’s economy. We were treated to NAFTA as well as a reduction in protectionist trade mechanisms. Economists knew exactly what affect that would have on the US economy. There was even a big push to train American workers for “service” industries. Now, 20 years later, we have discovered that globalist trade does not benefit the US population, as a whole. So we are going to return to some of the protectionist practices.

There will be downsides to increased tariffs. They will include increased prices to both businesses and consumers, at least initially. How much they will increase will depend upon how much tax breaks work out, reduction in costs due to elimination of regulations and how much the domestic market increases due to increased employment.

Always remember the fact that the US market accounts for 1/4 of the entire worldwide consumer market. If significant numbers of foreign goods producers relocate their manufacturing operation to the US to increase their access to that market, this will benefit the US economy.

We tried free, or at least freer, trade and that didn’t work out so well for us. Let’s try more restrictive import standards and see what happens.

    MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | March 11, 2018 at 7:14 pm

    It was the whole concept of outsourcing and “Just In Time”. I was working with a place that wanted “Just In Time” hospital beds. Like any good thing, they take things too far.

    The next stupid concept coming is Blockchain. It is going to eliminate the small business because they will not be able to participate in the process.

    Anal Retention globalization on steroids.

      Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | March 11, 2018 at 9:12 pm

      “Just in time” is a wonderfully successful inventory management tool.

      You’re just a tool.

      I’m waiting for you to state clearly where I’m wrong on tariffs, chicken.

        MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 12:37 pm

        You have no clue how business and manufacturing works. Just in Time pushed inventory cost out to small business so Big Corporate could carry a better bottom line while hurting small business. Classic globalist view. screw everyone else for better bottom line. You are a Thomas Friedman loving globalist who wants heavy immigration and heavy outsourcing no matter how bad it hurts the US middle class. Keep talking, you have zero credibility.

        It is obvious that you spout text book instead of real life. Must be a true liberal Jacobin Morris with a Cracker Jack Law degree, if you even got that. I am guessing a 56 year old 400 lb’er living is his mothers basement with 10 cats.

        Here Kitty! Kitty! Kitty!

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | March 11, 2018 at 9:17 pm

    You are, as so often, completely wrong and proud of it.

    International trade has provided Americans with the highest standard of living in history. It isn’t remotely a “failure”.

    “We tried free, or at least freer, trade and that didn’t work out so well for us. Let’s try more restrictive import standards and see what happens.”

    That’s been “tried” a great good deal, and we know how it works out. It’s a flucking disaster.

    It is MORE importantly anti-liberty, anti-market economics, and BIG GOVERNMENT central planning.

    Alt-righters LOVE it. Conservatives violently oppose it.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 12:34 pm

      You are correct that international trade HAS contributed to providing the American worker with the standard of living that we have today. But, that was when we had a positive, or at least a neutral, balance of trade. Since then, we have seen a rise in unemployment to record levels. The number of people not participating in the workforce is also at record levels. Our balance of trade is outrageously negative. We are bleeding green.

      Protectionist tariffs are only a disaster when they are not applied to LEVEL the playing field between foreign and domestic producers, but to give domestic producers a distinct advantage. See, “free trade” only works between partners who are nearly equal in stature. Tariffs are widely used for just that purpose in the world. Virtually every nation uses them. The nations with which we trade ALL apply them to some, or all, US made products, with the exception of Canada and Mexico.

      You have to separate your ANTI-GOVERNMENT bias from economic reality. Think of it this way. You live in Pennsylvania. Your state produces steel in significant quantities. Your state initially exports 50% of its steel production. The other states, with steel production can produce steel 25-50% cheaper that your state can, for a variety of reasons. Your state has no tariff on imported steel and therefor, manufacturers which use raw of machined steel buy their steel from other states. What happens? First your export market, for steel, dries up, as there are cheaper sources of steel elsewhere. Then, many of your domestic customers begin to use imported steel. If you can’t sell steel made in Pennsylvania, because of lower priced steel produced elsewhere, what happens? The Pennsylvania steel producers move their production facilities out of state or go broke. In either case, the result is the same. The employees of those co9mpanies get laid off. Other industries, which depend upon the output of those company mills, lay off workers or go out of business. Who picks up the slack to keep those workers alive, while they are out of a job? That;s right, the GUV’MENT. Not churches or private social welfare organizations, but the taxpayer, through guv’ment programs. Either way, the guv’ment, working people, pay for this.

      As for conservatives opposing tariffs, I’m sure that there are a number of conservatives in the steel industry who would disagree with that.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | March 12, 2018 at 1:52 pm

        “You are correct that international trade HAS contributed to providing the American worker with the standard of living that we have today. But, that was when we had a positive, or at least a neutral, balance of trade.”

        No, that is FALSE and you’re talking out your ass again. In virtually EVERY modern economy in the world over the last century there have been periods of trade surplus and trade deficit, and they have shown there is NO correlation with “trade thingy” and a rising standard of living.

        It’s a bogus concept, as I’ve explained…and you cannot comprehend.

        Where do you find this bullshit. Seriously. I really want to know.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | March 11, 2018 at 9:26 pm

    “They will include increased prices to both businesses and consumers, at least initially. How much they will increase will depend upon how much tax breaks work out, reduction in costs due to elimination of regulations and how much the domestic market increases due to increased employment.”

    This is MORE of your amazingly confused “thinking”. The increased cost to consumers will be what it is.

    There is no “off-set” to that cost from a savings in taxation. There is no “off-set” to that cost from a saving attributable to lower regulation. There is no “off-set” (certainly) when more Americans are put out of work.

    Without the new T-rump tax on virtually everything we consume, directly or indirectly, we’d enjoy a rise in our disposable income from the REPUBLICAN tax reduction (which was, BTW, NOT historic). IF there is and net reduction in the costs of regulation, we might see some benefits from that.

    There will be a net reduction in employment that could have been expected without this dangerous and destructive tariff. Sure as carts to horses. The iron reality of supply and demand tells us this without equivocation.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 12:51 pm

      “This is MORE of your amazingly confused “thinking”. The increased cost to consumers will be what it is.

      There is no “off-set” to that cost from a savings in taxation. There is no “off-set” to that cost from a saving attributable to lower regulation. There is no “off-set” (certainly) when more Americans are put out of work.”

      Wow, this is simply full of inaccuracies and assumptions. Where to begin.

      First, even if the cost of raw materials goes up, if other production costs are reduced or the market expands, then this can, and often does, result in no, or little, change in the price to consumers. Also, consumers will only pay so much for a product, unless they absolutely need it. This tends to limit the amount a manufacturer can realistically charge, if it wishes to sell its product. I’m not sure where you get your economic information, but you do not seem to understand market forces

      Second, where is there ANY evidence that a significant number of employees, or any for that matter, will be put out of work?

      “Without the new T-rump tax on virtually everything we consume, directly or indirectly, we’d enjoy a rise in our disposable income from the REPUBLICAN tax reduction (which was, BTW, NOT historic). IF there is and net reduction in the costs of regulation, we might see some benefits from that.”

      Now, you totally ignore the fact that there is still significant unemployment in this country. Almost 50% of the population is being supported by the GUV’MENT, either directly or through subsidies, including not paying income tax. These tariffs are designed to reduce the number of people on guv’ment subsidies by providing livable employment. Now, if the amount of money which guv’ments give to unemployed workers is reduced, guess what else is reduced; the tax burden on the American taxpayer. so, YOU get to keep more money, which enables you to spend more money which expands the economy, which employs more workers, which reduces the tax burden on the consumer, which allows you to keep even more money, which allows you to spend more money, which allows companies to employ more workers to meet increased demand, which further reduces your tax burden and so on.

      Economics in the US is an interlinked system encompassing manufacturers, service industries, workers and the guv’ment. What one does effects the rest.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | March 12, 2018 at 1:55 pm

        At this point, I can’t even…

        You can’t think logically.

        So, this is just going to have to happen to you so you can see how this works. If you’ll even be able to comprehend that…

          Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 6:23 pm

          I can’t think logically? Me? That is a HOOT.

          yes, rags we WILL just have to see what happens, won’t we? Just for S&G, how long do we have to wait to see the end of the economic world, as you portray? 6 months, a year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? I mean we have seen the last 24 years of reduced US trade barriers result in wide spread unemployment and the movement of manufacturing out of the country. So, how long will it take for us to see a strengthening of US trade protections result in increased unemployment and the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 6:37 pm

          You can already see it if you have eyes. Electrolux (world’s largest maker of home appliances) announced it won’t invest $250 million in the U.S., thank you very much.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:15 pm

          Well good news for manufacture Whirlpool. With cheaper US steel, they might be able to make things at a raw material cost. Also, it might make a little problem for the Chinese.

          I think Electrolux needs to be more concerned about Haier Group than US Tariffs.

          Haier Group is a number one Chinese multinational consumer electronics and home appliances company founded in 1984 headquartered in Qingdao, China. Zhang Ruimin is the founder of haier group.

          FYI:

          Electrolux buys all the steel it uses in its U.S. products domestically.

          “So this is not the possibility of tariffs directly impacting our costs, but rather the impact it could have on the market and that it could damage the overall competitiveness of our operations in the U.S.,” Frykholm said.

          35% of their revenue comes from the US. Go for it, piss off one of your best customers.

          I haven’t bought anything Electrolux in years. The canister vacuum was there last good product. I think that was like a 1930 version.

          https://www.pinterest.com/pin/342344009155528204/?l=t

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:23 pm

          Meant to say at a lower cost because of better raw material costs.

          Also, world wide Haier Group is the largest manufacture of home appliance. Again, the Jacobin Morris is being dishonest again.

          With CEO Paul Fang, The World’s Largest Appliance Company Transforms Its Business

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelschuman/2017/05/30/we-must-transform/#33d3521f34fb

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 10:11 pm

          Did they pass on investing $250 million in the U.S.?

          Yes or no, lying sack of shit.

          Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 11:04 pm

          What Electrolux announced was that its plans for expansion are being placed on hold until the tariffs are finalized and accurate business projections can be made. This is a little different from saying that Electrolux is NOT going to invest $250 million in the US.

          I know that you like citations, so here you go:

          https://www.investors.com/news/electrolux-halts-250-million-u-s-investment-over-trump-tariffs-on-steel/

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 11:09 pm

          So that’s a yes. Lying sack of shit.

      Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2018 at 5:18 am

      There is no “off-set” to that cost from a savings in taxation. There is no “off-set” to that cost from a saving attributable to lower regulation.

      Sorry, Rags, you were right until this point, but here I think you’ve missed a step. The price rises caused by protection will be offset by price drops caused by lower taxes and less onerous regulations.

      Think about it one step at a time. The underlying problem is that domestic producers’ costs are higher than those of foreign producers, so they can’t compete. Tariffs artificially raise the price of imports, thus allowing domestic producers to raise their prices to match. Loser: the consumer.

      But tax cuts and deregulation lower the domestic producers’ costs, and domestic competition forces them to pass that savings on to consumers in the form of lower prices, thus offsetting the rise due to protection. So the consumer still loses, but not as much. (If the offset were so large as to wipe out the rise due to protection, there’d be no need for the protection in the first place.)

Tariffs that compensate for labor, environmental, and monetary arbitrage that establish monopolies or practices, are both rational and reasonable.

    Milhouse in reply to n.n. | March 13, 2018 at 5:23 am

    They are neither. The purpose of the economy is to support consumers, not producers. Any action that taxes the general interest to support a special interest is by definition harmful. It makes no difference whatsoever why the producer is having a hard time; he is not entitled to stay in business, and if he can’t serve the consumer, for any reason at all, then he shouldn’t be in business and it’s wasteful to keep him there.

Fluffy Foo Foo | March 11, 2018 at 1:45 pm

With “free trade” we’ve totally exported democracy to China and Russia. Jesus Christ Chuck!

Fluffy Foo Foo | March 11, 2018 at 9:49 pm

Ragspierre… you’re a little overconfident with your economics lecturing. Economists don’t agree on everything and macro-Economists are wrong every day. And even you must know we live in a mixed market economy. Our anarchic world order based on sovereignty doesn’t allow for true “free trade”. Will there be losers with tariffs? Oh yes, but there are losers with illegal immigration and many other government choices. Small or big, government is making choices.

Check out Walter Russell Mead’s take of Trump’s tariffs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-serious-about-tariffs-1520292692

    Ragspierre in reply to Fluffy Foo Foo. | March 11, 2018 at 10:32 pm

    Mead’s take-away…

    “It is much too early to predict that the president’s assault on the liberal trade order will succeed. But it would be foolish to underestimate the determination he will bring to the fight. Investors, managers and political leaders around the world need to prepare.”

    I agree. Duh Donald is an obdurate narcissist who is acting like Mr. Big.

    Investors, managers and political leaders need to retrench. And they will.

    Our Congress needs to take back the power here, so that Duh Donald cannot play these games on his whims.

    At the VERY least, Duh Donald NEEDS a cadre of economics advisors that SOMEBODY makes him learn something from. But that appears unlikely.

I have been re-reading F. Hayek’s “Road To Serfdom”. You should read his chapter on “planning”.

Or actually, you should read the whole thing. Then you should read the works of other members of the Austrian School. Then the Chicago School of economics.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | March 13, 2018 at 5:25 am

    But first read The Wealth of Nations. It all starts from there. It’s long, but easy reading, and well worth the time spent.

Near the end of 2015, the latest version of the famous car rolled into 140 countries. Decked out for its 50th anniversary with a major update in design and engineering, the Mustang was met with a rush of orders from fans who had been waiting decades to get one. By 2017, Mustang sales were swooning in the U.S. as the new model’s novelty faded, but foreign buyers proved more faithful, fueling a steady stream of orders to the plant in Flat Rock, Michigan, where the Mustang is made.

The pony car may be as American as bourbon, Steve McQueen and, well, the mustang, but today one in four of these machines is bound for drivers in China, the U.K. and Germany. (Ford says it’s even sold 17 in Bulgaria.) This four-wheeled fever dream for generations of young American men—the stuff of Bruce Springsteen fables—has finally gone continental.

“It’s very much a piece of the American dream that has actually been able to move,” said Ian Fletcher, a London-based auto analyst for IHS Markit. “It’s still a very, very niche vehicle, but people see it and they want to buy it. It’s a heart-and-soul thing.”

No, no. THAT’S unpossible, according to Duh Donald. And he’s a “stable genie-ass”…

Right…???

    MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 4:02 pm

    Mustangs suck and they always have. Over rated car as usual. I would take a 67-69 Camero or any Corvette over a crappy toy car like the Mustang.

      Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | March 12, 2018 at 5:58 pm

      But what you’d take is of no moment whatsoever.

      You’re an Alt-righter here on a conservative blog. Which is fine.

      So long as everyone is clear who you are, and you’d take a rocket up your ass if it was from “Daddy”. (Don’t get all excited over that.)

        MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:27 pm

        I bet Mother’s basement dwelling Jacobin Morris drives a Toyota Yaris. I bet he never has changed the oil in a car yet he claims to be an expert on cars now.

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 9:51 pm

        rags, The Yugo Lawyer.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 10:14 pm

        I own my small acres in fee simple (look it up, morons), and I principally drive an F150. I used to have a F250 diesel, but I traded it off.

        My parents are dead these many decades. I hope yours yet live, and are ashamed of you.

    Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 12, 2018 at 11:09 pm

    So, what exactly is your point?

    From the article, it appears that Ford limited the marketing of the Mustang to the US, until it saturated that niche market and sales collapsed. In order to continue to make money on that item, Ford expanded the market overseas, in spite of foreign tariffs. And, apparently nearly 75% of the Mustang market is STILL confined to the US.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | March 12, 2018 at 11:13 pm

      But your Daddy told you the U.S. found it “impossible” to sell cars in Europe (China, etc.).

      Your Daddy lied to you, Alt-right boi. Don’t you haves the sads…???

I love this line from the TreeHouse:

Everyone admits the past 40+ years of U.S. trade deals have resulted in the massive export of U.S. wealth via jobs and manufacturing gains within other nations. The financial beneficiaries of those prior trade positions were: Wall Street, multinational corporations and multinational banks. The losers of prior trade priorities was the U.S. middle-class.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/03/12/president-trump-tweets-secretary-ross-reevaluating-eu-trade-deals/

I am loving all this. Pop Corn is popping and heads are exploding.

    Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | March 12, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    Well, it’s a lie, so you would “love it”. You’re a cloaca-sucking Alt-righter.

    Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | March 13, 2018 at 5:28 am

    The Nuthouse plays true to form, showing its title to be a lie. Anyone who relies on information from that source proves himself to be a fool.

      MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | March 13, 2018 at 7:50 pm

      Well, they were on target with the Zimmerman case. They seem to be very on target about the FBI/DOJ scheme team. Yea, some of the posters are a little off the wall, but then so is the Yugo Driving Jacobin Morris.

      As for the line I quoted, tell me where it is wrong? The word “Everyone”? I watched outsourcing and globalization ruin several towns and cities in Michigan and Indiana. I watch companies I worked for outsource plum projects to get better profits (with lose in quality)

      Take a look at this chart for the max view:

      https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

      Interesting how our economy went is the dumper as our deficit increased.

      In 2017, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Ireland and Italy and the biggest trade surpluses with Hong Kong, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Australia, Singapore and Brazil. Mexico is the United States’ 2nd largest export market and the 3rd largest supplier of imports.

      You seem to have issue with The Conservative Tree House, but I have not seen where Sundance is been way off base. He actually has been supportive of LI, too.

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | March 14, 2018 at 11:43 am

        “Interesting how our economy went is the dumper as our deficit increased.”

        Really, what’s interesting is that this is both false and crazy.

        “Trade balance” is a completely FALSE concept. It has NOTHING to do with the health of our economy.

        There will NEVER be a “balance of trade” with the U.S. and Norway, Sweden, or Spain. We will ALWAYS buy more from them than we sell them (scored in dollars).

        Over time, the U.S. has run both trade surpluses and trade deficits during times of rising standards of living. There is NO correlation between ANY measure of trade “balance” and the health of the U.S. economy.

        Tariffs are a stupid tax on American consumers that ONLY benefit special interests. They are BIG GOVERNMENT in action.

        As an Alt-right boi, you LIKE all this.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend