US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

^ i also hope the 'rest of the world' does not overreact, and stays calm.

I think it will hurt the US more than others, basically because if e.g. home-made steel can be sold again to exagerrated prices, there will be no inventions or pressure to adapt to international economy, which might be bad in the long run; it is a two-sided sword.
But you are right, Trump did what he promised.. and he puts pressure on Canada, and Mexico (NAFTA).

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

BUT what's more important is it can now be said campaign promises were kept.

Exactly. His base will be happy with that alone, no matter the damage they will just go "Well, he did what he promised!".

Originally Posted by Catfish

I think it will hurt the US more than others[..]

It will, yes. Other countries can just take their business elsewhere, if they want to. Of course, for example Canada taking their aluminium elsewhere would mean less profits, but they can still do that. The US doesn't have that luxury, they need to get their raw materials or the manufacturing industry is going to be in trouble.

[Rockstar]

I don't think neither the U.S. or Canada actually mine bauxite we just refine it. Australia, Argentina and Jamaica are, I believe, the top producers of the ore.

As for steel, just ask Aktungbby about 'Da Range' When I was a kid growing up, the Port of Duluth Minnesota never slept it was moving tons of taconite every day of the week. We still got more iron ore than you can shake a stick at. Now though most steel products are imported from China. And cities like Gary Indiana that used to refine the material into steel are crumbling wastelands and the Port of Duluth is nothing but a museum. Now I'm not saying bring back the good old days but any increase in domestic refining would I think equate to an increase in domestic jobs. But 25% tariffs across the board is plain stupid and just ticks everyone off. If however used judiciously it just might do some good. We'll see how productive it is whether it's just political hay or if it really does help our own in the long term.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I suspect that a lot of Pro Trump people are quite these days.

You mean quiet? Well here's one that isn't being quiet:

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

As for steel, just ask Aktungbby about 'Da Range' own in the long term.

SPAM, HAMM'S, AND THE MESABI RANGE BBY!

The Mesabi Iron Range is an elongate trend containing large deposits of iron ore, and the largest of four major iron ranges in the region collectively known as the Iron Range of Minnesota. Discovered in 1866, it is the chief iron ore mining district in the United States. The district is located in northeast Minnesota, largely in Itasca and Saint Louis counties. It was extensively worked in the earlier part of the 20th century. Extraction operations declined throughout the mid-1970s but rebounded in 2005. China's growing demand for iron, along with the falling value of the U.S. dollar versus other world currencies, have made taconite production profitable again, and some mines that had closed have been reopened, while current mines have been expanded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesabi_Range IRON ORE VESSELS AT Duluth, ON lAKE SPERIOR THE MOST FAMOUS OF WHICH WAS THE SS EDMOND FITZGERALD -LOST WITH ALL HANDS 1958. She was the largest ship on North America's Great Lakes, and she remains the largest to have sunk there. I CLEARLY RECALL THE NEWS ON THE MPLS RADIO...(B 4 WE HAD TV):

[em2nought]

If I was "The Donald", I'd agree to leave South Korea with a promise to never return if Kim gives up his nukes. There is no way to lose for us. It's not like the south really wants us there, and if they can't stand on their own two feet after almost 70 years so be it. If Kim invades the south, no more Kias or Hyundais, good for US manufacturing. If we leave, Japan gets scared and decides to rearm so we aren't having to providing their $ecurity anymore. Even if Kim secretly kept his nukes it's still a win for us. lol ...and all those troops are going to need someplace to go, lets send them to the US border for awhile.

The absolute best part would be how bat **** crazy the fake news people would react. That would be worth the doing in and of itself.

[Skybird]

I so far lived in the belief, probably due to many-years-outdated input from longer time ago, that the tarrifs the EU raises on US imports and tarrifs the US raiseon EU imports are, all factors calculated in, on a comparable niveau.

Today I read a brief essay whose author claims that this is not the case, but that the EU indeed acts far more protectionistic than the US. For example 10% EU tarrifs on US cars into the EU, but 2.5% on EU cars into the US, or non-agricultural imports: the US lets in 48% of such goods without tarrifs, in the EU this quota is only 26%. The author making these claims is chief economost of the commerzbank and bases his analysis on statistical data by the WTO.

He recommends therefore that the EU should not retaliate, but indeed offer talks on lowering EU tarrifs to US level.

I was for retaliation by the EU as well, but first: the Germany economy is vulnerable regarding its dependency on the US market (I assume this is the real idea behind Trumps acting, to weaken the German export-heavy economy and push it back as a rival on the global market); and second, if the auhtor is right in his claims, the US would have a point with their readiness to battle over tarrifs.

But socialist Europe that depending so heavily on blackmailing protection money to finance its socialist wellfare and voter bribery programs - this Europe should lower its taxes? Unrealistic expectation, I think. In Germany, we pay taxes until we need a doctor. The state celebrates a record income - and immediately throws it away for party propaganda programs and voter bribery projects, and financing the debts of other states and the Euro that nevertheless is collapsing in slow motion. What is wanted is a cartel of blackmailers for protection money. Thus the demand for ever new taxes and higher tax rates. People should not work for themselves, but should work for the collective.

Anyone having a reliable statistical source for comparing the financial give-and-takes between the US and the EU regarding total net tarrif amounts?

[Platapus]

The White House has issued a guideline for ethical behaviour. Included in this guidance:

"You are the best guardian of your reputation. Your recordkeeping practices must be designed with a purpose to prove innocence at the complaint phase or with the press.""Even if legal, does not mean you should do it -- always consider optics."
"Optics questions: Does the event or travel further the President's priorities, your department or agency's mission; or, does it appear recreational or entertainment in nature."
"Remember, an ethics opinion matters only if the ethics officer received all of the information.

I think one can safely presume that the White House is not covered by this new ethics guidance. Those weekends in his property are essential for national security... or something.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I think one can safely presume that the White House is not covered by this new ethics guidance. Those weekends in his property are essential for national security... or something.

So Bill Clinton is regularly excoriated for violating the sanctity of the White House and Oval office with his extra curricular activities and you're doing the same to a President who might prefer doing them elsewhere?

Hey how about we put body cams on all politicians? Yeah right?! Ones that run 24/7 and cannot be taken off or shut off from the moment they take office until they leave office.

Of course we'd need an enormous and hugely expensive Federal bureaucracy to monitor these cameras for signs of impropriety and of course they'd need sweeping powers to decide what footage would be released and released to who and when, but it's a small price to pay to keep them from dipping their wick where they ain't supposed to.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Anyone having a reliable statistical source for comparing the financial give-and-takes between the US and the EU regarding total net tarrif amounts?

I started looking into it and got a headache from trying to make sense of the information out there.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I so far lived in the belief, probably due to many-years-outdated input from longer time ago, that the tarrifs the EU raises on US imports and tarrifs the US raiseon EU imports are, all factors calculated in, on a comparable niveau.

Today I read a brief essay whose author claims that this is not the case, but that the EU indeed acts far more protectionistic than the US. For example 10% EU tarrifs on US cars into the EU, but 2.5% on EU cars into the US,

Addendum, today I read that while normal cars indeed have tarrifs mentioned above, trucks and pickups into the Us have punishingly higher tarrifs when imported into the US, than pickuos and trucks going into the EU. For US car makers, the truck business seems to be much more important on the internal US market so that their overpriced costs can be held up against the strong competition of European truck makers that are more popular globally.

I think I have nener seen a single typical US-made truck model with its typical nose design seen on any German street in my life. And pickups representing Northamerican model designs are rare, have kind of an exotic status over here. Also, car models of Northamerican design (model imports, therefore) are almost never to be met on German streets, the demand is almost nil. Not due to tarrifs, but becasue peopel do not show any interest in them. Unfairness, as Trump claims, has nothing to do with it. Just these cars not meeting German/European taste. Obviously it is quite different the other way around, a lot of European car models sell successfully and have a certain base demand in the US.

[Hawk66]

To add: the tarrifs between the EU and US were negotiated by both sides...to describe the outcome now as unfair is a little ridiculous, isn't it?

The question is if Trump wants to change the tarrifs...has he tried to re-negotiate it?

[August]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

To add: the tarrifs between the EU and US were negotiated by both sides...to describe the outcome now as unfair is a little ridiculous, isn't it?

OK just call it a bad deal then?

[Skybird]

Slowly waving good-bye?

https://translate.google.de/translat...x_0&edit-text=

[August]

I think the author makes some very interesting points.

There he goes again. President Trump just won’t listen to those who know better.

And there they go again. The smart money set is certain that this time, the sky really is falling.


Perhaps those lecturing the president over his tariff plans are right that he is making a colossal mistake and will regret losing his top economic advisor, Gary Cohn, over the decision. If nothing else, their learned references to the awful consequences of actual trade wars and to the disaster of the Smoot-Hawley broadside in 1930 make for a coherent argument against protectionism.


Except for one thing: the critics offer no solutions for the working class Americans left behind by the bipartisan push for globalization. Their silence on the destructive impacts of the deindustrialization of America suggest they have no answers — and not much compassion for the families who pay the price of trade policies through lost jobs and hollowed-out towns.
Moreover, their failure to focus on the plight of those families and how they factor into the president’s view of the nation shows they still don’t fully appreciate why Trump was elected. It was legions of frustrated working and middle-class voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin that helped him barrel through the supposedly solid blue wall of Democratic states.

In many ways, the tariff tiff is playing out in similar fashion to Trump’s other big announcement of last week — his agreement to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. Once again, the president is accused of naivete, this time for giving away the favor of a presidential meeting without guarantees of concessions.
He is also being called arrogant for thinking he can work magic on a problem that defied the three previous presidents.
The detractors may be right that Trump is walking into a trap. If the talks fail, he’ll be embarrassed and left in a weaker position than now. That, in turn, might leave no option except a military strike, which could be a catastrophe.
Yet, as with tariffs, the naysayers have no answer for a problem Trump inherited from presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So why should Trump follow the paths most taken when they yielded only a more dangerous situation, now that North Korea has nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?

https://nypost.com/2018/03/11/critic...-no-solutions/