Trump's Trade War

[F250 28,777]

5 hours ago, Royalfan5 said:

Used to able to jump terraces in a Blazer while trying to shoot Coyotes(animal, not smuggler) but I don’t you’ll be able to do that with the new one either.

The new Blazer will not resemble what most of us remember what a Blazer used to look like, it's going to be similar to a Jeep Cherokee. I am not confident that the new Broncos will be worth a damn either.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

We arguably need a recession but Trump seems hell bent on doing everything he can to create a full blown crash.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

 

To do that, Fox News would have to be country first, party second. Country isn’t even in the top ten of what they are concerned about.

 

All you need is a solid change at the top to clean house and take the network in a different direction.  It’s actually pretty simple really.

[Aqua Buddha 14,598]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

All you need is a solid change at the top to clean house and take the network in a different direction.  It’s actually pretty simple really.

You're about to have a major change.  Disney is about to take over.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

9 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You're about to have a major change.  Disney is about to take over.

I was told Fox News wasn’t part of that package 

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

2 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You're about to have a major change.  Disney is about to take over.

Yeah, what do they know about peddling fantasy to the minds of children?

[atomheartbevo 89,675]

3 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You're about to have a major change.  Disney is about to take over.

Disney doesn’t get Fox News. 

But I wish they would. Trump would be even more crazier on twitter. 

And he’s spent plenty of time on Twitter today as it is. 

[Pods 7,552]

Of course not. Murdoch isn't going to give up his propaganda tool. He's just gotten it fully operational. 

[atomheartbevo 89,675]

16 minutes ago, Pods said:

Of course not. Murdoch isn't going to give up his propaganda tool. He's just gotten it fully operational. 

Trumpkins don't realize that Rupert, and more importantly, his kids, will run a train on Trump using Fox News if/when Trump goes down.

[Cacti 191]

4 hours ago, TornACL said:

You should be able to explain to a third grader why win-lose scenarios don't work with international trade. 

 

It appears that China—as well as our allies and neutral countries—take a different view; that is, they seem to think that a “win-lose scenario” works just fine, as long as they have a trade surplus with us.

Look, Trump’s approach is confrontational, unsophisticated and brutish, and while those tactics may be successful or tolerable in the business world it is doubtful they will succeed on the international, political stage. But why is it not acceptable to at least try to have more favorable terms for us? We’ve currently running deficits with the E.U., with N.A.F.T.A., with China (of course), as well as with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and so forth. And we’ve tolerated this trade one-sidedness for over forty years; isn’t it past time to at least try and restore some sense of balance?

[Pods 7,552]

It's perfectly acceptable to renegotiate, but if you send a clown to do it, expect a circus. 

[atomheartbevo 89,675]

1 minute ago, Cacti said:

It appears that China—as well as our allies and neutral countries—take a different view; that is, they seem to think that a “win-lose scenario” works just fine, as long as they have a trade surplus with us.

Look, Trump’s approach is confrontational, unsophisticated and brutish, and while those tactics may be successful or tolerable in the business world it is doubtful they will succeed on the international, political stage. But why is it not acceptable to at least try to have more favorable terms for us? We’ve currently running deficits with the E.U., with N.A.F.T.A., with China (of course), as well as with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and so forth. And we’ve tolerated this trade one-sidedness for over forty years; isn’t it past time to at least try and restore some sense of balance?

That sounds good, but Trump is the guy calling the shots, and he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room (he isn't), he thinks he can get whatever he wants (he can't), and he cares only about how it makes him look and/or if it makes he or his buddies money.  

He has absolutely no problem getting us into trade wars that fuck over a lot of people (raise prices on goods they buy, put many out of work) as long as it makes him look good.    

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Putin is calling the shots, let’s not kid ourselves.

[zork 629]

17 minutes ago, Pods said:

It's perfectly acceptable to renegotiate, but if you send a clown to do it, expect a circus. 

Seems to me the clown is the person saying what existed before Trump was elected was free trade.  Look at the large disparity in the pre-existing tariffs before Trump threatened to add some tariffs to counter the lopsided conditions that existed before he was in charge.  Hate Trump but be fair about the lack of free trade from our allies.  

Further, the economists who are decrying the method Trump is employing are also ignoring that disparity.  Just because something is already in effect and has been in effect with both sides dealing with said effect, doesn't make the effect not a burden.(effect being unfair existing tariffs or fees that hurt American product affordability in virtually all of our ally countries(especially when compared to our low fees and low tariffs))

We'll see what happens.  It seems while some trading partners are blustering they are also offering compromises potentially that might make it a better deal for American business when it is said and done.  

Mercedes shouldn't need any trade fee or tariff help to keep their business.  Why does Germany have more of a fee or tariff for auto imports than America does currently?  Why is it unreasonable to threaten to increase our fees or tariffs to match theirs unless they lower theirs?  That is not anti-free trade they way I see it. 

It is demanding fair trade.  Extrapolate it across all markets that affect American imports and Exports.

Edited June 23, 2018 by zork

[SKJ 1,311]

15 hours ago, zork said:

Seems to me the clown is the person saying what existed before Trump was elected was free trade.  Look at the large disparity in the pre-existing tariffs before Trump threatened to add some tariffs to counter the lopsided conditions that existed before he was in charge.  Hate Trump but be fair about the lack of free trade from our allies.  

Further, the economists who are decrying the method Trump is employing are also ignoring that disparity.  Just because something is already in effect and has been in effect with both sides dealing with said effect, doesn't make the effect not a burden.(effect being unfair existing tariffs or fees that hurt American product affordability in virtually all of our ally countries(especially when compared to our low fees and low tariffs))

We'll see what happens.  It seems while some trading partners are blustering they are also offering compromises potentially that might make it a better deal for American business when it is said and done.  

Mercedes shouldn't need any trade fee or tariff help to keep their business.  Why does Germany have more of a fee or tariff for auto imports than America does currently?  Why is it unreasonable to threaten to increase our fees or tariffs to match theirs unless they lower theirs?  That is not anti-free trade they way I see it. 

It is demanding fair trade.  Extrapolate it across all markets that affect American imports and Exports.

Please, feel free to post any (neutral, verifiable) evidence.

Because I think "deficit," a main point in this, means something very different than you think it does, especially considering the fact that if we were to have truly balanced trade, we'd have to FORCE companies to manufacture shit here for a higher price, and then basically FORCE other countries to import shit.

Stop randomly talking about a trade deficit. It's also a PRODUCTION deficit.

[Message Board User 12,395]

 

[SKJ 1,311]

Ha ha ha they're going to target Trump's businesses...

You know, the ones in blind trust.

I bet the names come down off those buildings pretty quick when the licensors are getting fucked

[kevwun 15,790]

I like this new trend of making everyone associated with Trump as miserable as possible. If the republicans won’t impeach him, make him and everyone in the administration regret the day he took office.

Shun them all.

[Post Oak 20,217]

4 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I like this new trend of making everyone associated with Trump as miserable as possible. If the republicans won’t impeach him, make him and everyone in the administration regret the day he took office.

Shun them all.

Agreed. Fuck em all

[XYZ 2,154]

17 hours ago, Cacti said:

 

It appears that China—as well as our allies and neutral countries—take a different view; that is, they seem to think that a “win-lose scenario” works just fine, as long as they have a trade surplus with us.

Look, Trump’s approach is confrontational, unsophisticated and brutish, and while those tactics may be successful or tolerable in the business world it is doubtful they will succeed on the international, political stage. But why is it not acceptable to at least try to have more favorable terms for us? We’ve currently running deficits with the E.U., with N.A.F.T.A., with China (of course), as well as with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and so forth. And we’ve tolerated this trade one-sidedness for over forty years; isn’t it past time to at least try and restore some sense of balance?

This.

[XYZ 2,154]

17 hours ago, zork said:

Seems to me the clown is the person saying what existed before Trump was elected was free trade.  Look at the large disparity in the pre-existing tariffs before Trump threatened to add some tariffs to counter the lopsided conditions that existed before he was in charge.  Hate Trump but be fair about the lack of free trade from our allies.  

Further, the economists who are decrying the method Trump is employing are also ignoring that disparity.  Just because something is already in effect and has been in effect with both sides dealing with said effect, doesn't make the effect not a burden.(effect being unfair existing tariffs or fees that hurt American product affordability in virtually all of our ally countries(especially when compared to our low fees and low tariffs))

We'll see what happens.  It seems while some trading partners are blustering they are also offering compromises potentially that might make it a better deal for American business when it is said and done.  

Mercedes shouldn't need any trade fee or tariff help to keep their business.  Why does Germany have more of a fee or tariff for auto imports than America does currently?  Why is it unreasonable to threaten to increase our fees or tariffs to match theirs unless they lower theirs?  That is not anti-free trade they way I see it. 

It is demanding fair trade.  Extrapolate it across all markets that affect American imports and Exports.

And this.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

Even when trump is fighting the good fight, such as trying to get China to open up trade and prevent Intellectual property theft, trump can’t even position it well.

but then again his supporters care more about identifying with as strong leader as opposed to well thought out ideas. 

[Redneck Mutha 7,957]

17 hours ago, zork said:

Seems to me the clown is the person saying what existed before Trump was elected was free trade.  Look at the large disparity in the pre-existing tariffs before Trump threatened to add some tariffs to counter the lopsided conditions that existed before he was in charge.  Hate Trump but be fair about the lack of free trade from our allies.  

When you consider "fair trade", also consider the subsidies that a lot of US exporting industries (auto, aircraft, food) receive from the US government.  We are not where we are just by accident.  There have been actions by us and other countries over the years (including various trade agreements that we are party to) to get to where we are today.

 

17 hours ago, zork said:

Further, the economists who are decrying the method Trump is employing are also ignoring that disparity.  Just because something is already in effect and has been in effect with both sides dealing with said effect, doesn't make the effect not a burden.(effect being unfair existing tariffs or fees that hurt American product affordability in virtually all of our ally countries(especially when compared to our low fees and low tariffs))

The only certainty when these tariffs go into effect is that American product affordability will be hurt even more than what you are claiming it is now.  And most signs point to Canada, EU, and China retaliating which will make it much worse.  If we want to take the chance and use tariffs in a standoff against the rest of the world, hoping that they will blink first, I don't like our chances.  Especially against more patient and calculating countries, administrations, and trade coalitions.

[Dbeasy 15,052]

Even when trump is fighting the good fight, such as trying to get China to open up trade and prevent Intellectual property theft, trump can’t even position it well.
but then again his supporters care more about identifying with as strong leader as opposed to well thought out ideas. 

I think some cringe at his approach but don’t criticize it yet because of the past failures of every other administration to effectively address it. Their view is that since nothing else has worked so far, why not give the crazy narcissist a crack at it.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

1 minute ago, Redneck Mutha said:

When you consider "fair trade", also consider the subsidies that a lot of US exporting industries (auto, aircraft, food) receive from the US government.  We are not where we are just by accident.  There have been actions by us and other countries over the years (including various trade agreements that we are party to) to get to where we are today.

Great point.  When I heard that Canada has very high tariffs against US dairy imports, my initial reaction was that the US should force Canada to stop that. Then I heard how the US has subsidies for our dairy farmers while Canada doesn’t do that for their dairy, I can see why Canada has to protect against unfair US practices.     

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

4 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I think some cringe at his approach but don’t criticize it yet because of the past failures of every other administration to effectively address it. Their view is that since nothing else has worked so far, why not give the crazy narcissist a crack at it.

I don’t disagree that some new tactics should be used but trump seems to intentionally refuse to communicate logic even when logic can support his actions.  But then again perhaps that is his comm style: get people to react emotionally not logically. Some people, with zero understanding of trade, only care that we are sticking it to non Americans. 

And another point that trump refuses to communicate is that it’s actually best to have fights over trade when the economy is booming.  You don’t want trade wars when you’re in a recession and fighting over pennies.   Instead you want to find leverage when times are relatively good.   The overall economy has more flexibility to absorb a trade war.  

[swraith 347]

I keep waiting for US equities market to reflect the dangers of a potentially escalating trade war with US allies. Hasn’t happen yet.

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

https://www.axios.com/peter-navarro-free-trade-globalist-the-policy-game-book-7e2739be-104b-41cf-a5b6-986ac66f213a.html

 

Quote

People think of Peter Navarro, the top White House trade adviser, as President Trump’s mind-meld on tariffs — the most hardline protectionist in the White House. But Navarro used to preach very different ideas in his early career as an economist.

The bottom line: In his 1984 book, "The Policy Game: How Special Interests and Ideologues are Stealing America," that's no longer in print — Axios got a copy from a university library — Navarro sounds a lot like the very administration officials he's sparred with on trade policy. And he argues that tariffs will inevitably send the global economy into crisis.

Quote

We asked Navarro what prompted the radical change in his views, and he explained how he went from a free trader to an economic nationalist. In response to "The Policy Game," specifically, Navarro told Axios:

It borders on the comical that Axios would spend so much time on a book written 34 years ago and completely ignore the insights of my later works like the 2006 Coming China Wars, the 2011 Death By China, and the 2015 Crouching Tiger.  Together, these books explain at length why the globalist Ricardian free trade model is broken and urgently needs fixing in the name of both the economic and national security of the United States.

— Peter Navarro

 

Quote

From the book...

"The clear danger of this trend [protectionism] is an all-out global trade war; for when one country excludes others from its markets, the other countries inevitably retaliate with their own trade barriers. And as history has painfully taught, once protectionist wars begin, the likely result is a deadly and well-nigh unstoppable downward spiral by the entire world economy.

If the world is, in fact, sucked into this spiral, enormous gains from trade will be sacrificed. While such a sacrifice might save some jobs in sheltered domestic industries, it will destroy as many or more in other home industries, particularly those that rely heavily on export trade. At the same time, consumers will pay tens of billions of dollars more in higher prices for a much more limited selection of goods. Sacrificed, too, on the altar of protectionism will be the very heart of an international world order that since World War II has successfully changed the aggressive struggle among nations for world resources and markets into a peaceful economic competition rather than a confrontational political or military one."

 

Quote

There are multiple passages in "Policy Game" that directly argue against Navarro's current positions. Navarro's go-to argument defending the White House's trade moves has been national security. In a June New York Times op-ed, he wrote:

"President Trump reserves the right to defend those industries critical to our own national security. To do this, the United States has imposed tariffs on aluminum and steel imports. While critics may question how these metal tariffs can be imposed in the name of national security on allies and neighbors like Canada, they miss the fundamental point: These tariffs are not aimed at any one country. They are a defensive measure to ensure the domestic viability of two of the most important industries necessary for United States military and civilian production at times of crisis so that the United States can defend itself as well as its allies."

Quote

But Navarro's own book topples that argument as well:

"On the benefit side, protectionism within certain basic industries like autos, steel, and electronics helps to create and sustain an industrial base that, in times of war or national peril, can be shifted to defense purposes, However, this national security argument — and the existence of any benefits resulting from protecting these industries — can be legitimately called into question for several reasons.

First, the existence of any sizable benefits rests on the assumption that import competition in our defense-related industries would not only reduce the size of these industries but also shrink them to the point where they would be too small to support our defense needs. The threshold of danger is a matter of some dispute. How big, after all, do our auto, steel, or electronics industries have to be to keep our borders safe? In spite of this uncertainty, few analysts would argue that import competition is likely to push a nation with as large and mature an industrial base as ours anywhere close to that threshold.

Second, it is highly possible that our defense capability might actually be enhanced — not damaged — by import competition. Without the umbrella of protectionism, our defense-related industries would be forced to operate at lowest cost, engage in more research and development, aggressively innovate to stay one step ahead of the competition, and modernize their plants at a faster pace. Thus, while import competition might shrink these industries, they would be leaner, tougher, more efficient, and more modern and in all likelihood outperform a bigger and inefficient (protected) version of those same industries.

On the national security cost side, the major effect of protectionism is to threaten the stability of the international economic order through a global trade war..."

— "The Policy Game," pg. 82

 

 

[XYZ 2,154]

7 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Great point.  When I heard that Canada has very high tariffs against US dairy imports, my initial reaction was that the US should force Canada to stop that. Then I heard how the US has subsidies for our dairy farmers while Canada doesn’t do that for their dairy, I can see why Canada has to protect against unfair US practices.     

 

And yet it’s the USA the one with the half trillion dollar trade deficit year after year. Not Canada, not Europe, and most definitely not fucking China. These countries with a trade surplus against the USA, mainly China and Japan before it, have been using the extra dollars they end up with to buy US treasury bonds, keeping the game going. So see, it will be a shitshow if the USA attempts to balance its trade, but if nothing were done to balance trade, the outcome would inevitably also be a shitshow. I think I saw somewhere that 40% of shipping containers that arrive at US ports with shit from abroad, leave empty. Why is it so hard for people to understand that you can’t do that indefinitely?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

4 minutes ago, XYZ said:

And yet it’s the USA the one with the half trillion dollar trade deficit year after year. Not Canada, not Europe, and most definitely not fucking China. These countries with a trade surplus against the USA, mainly China and Japan before it, have been using the extra dollars they end up with to buy US treasury bonds, keeping the game going. So see, it will be a shitshow if the USA attempts to balance its trade, but if nothing were done to balance trade, the outcome would inevitably also be a shitshow. I think I saw somewhere that 40% of shipping containers that arrive at US ports with shit from abroad, leave empty. Why is it so hard for people to understand that you can’t do that indefinitely?

Have you taken an economics class, man?  You have the biggest, best economy in the world, you’re gonna have some trade deficits.  Sheeit.  It’s not a bad thing.  Tariffs are a bad thing.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  

[XYZ 2,154]

1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Have you taken an economics class, man?  You have the biggest, best economy in the world, you’re gonna have some trade deficits.  Sheeit.  It’s not a bad thing.  Tariffs are a bad thing.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  

If I were given god-like powers, the first class of people I would erase from the face of the earth would be economists. They are fucking worthless pseudo-scientists. The second class I would eradicate would be scammers, although I suspect that there would be far fewer scammers left after getting rid of the economists.

Significant trade deficits, like the USA has had since China joined the WTO, is unsustainable. You say “you’re gonna have some trade deficits” as if you were talking about misplacing some spare change every now and then. I think it’s been around $400 billion per year for many years. How can you not see that it’s unsustainable?

[Message Board User 12,395]

Trade wars!

[atomheartbevo 89,675]

We are always going to have issues. You’re just not going to find Americans who can assemble phones for $2 an hour. 

[retread 2,951]

The King is insisting -- since Congress is collectively sitting on its hands.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

15 minutes ago, XYZ said:

If I were given god-like powers, the first class of people I would erase from the face of the earth would be economists. They are fucking worthless pseudo-scientists. The second class I would eradicate would be scammers, although I suspect that there would be far fewer scammers left after getting rid of the economists.

Significant trade deficits, like the USA has had since China joined the WTO, is unsustainable. You say “you’re gonna have some trade deficits” as if you were talking about misplacing some spare change every now and then. I think it’s been around $400 billion per year for many years. How can you not see that it’s unsustainable?

Walt Rostow would kick your ass and wipe LBJs undies with your hair.  Your outrage is not only misplaced, it is misguided as fuck. 

[SKJ 1,311]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

We are always going to have issues. You’re just not going to find Americans who can assemble phones for $2 an hour. 

This is what I was saying earlier.

It's more than just a trade problem, it's a production problem.

 

[Sgt Hulk 13,717]

On 6/23/2018 at 2:10 PM, Cacti said:

 

It appears that China—as well as our allies and neutral countries—take a different view; that is, they seem to think that a “win-lose scenario” works just fine, as long as they have a trade surplus with us.

Look, Trump’s approach is confrontational, unsophisticated and brutish, and while those tactics may be successful or tolerable in the business world it is doubtful they will succeed on the international, political stage. But why is it not acceptable to at least try to have more favorable terms for us? We’ve currently running deficits with the E.U., with N.A.F.T.A., with China (of course), as well as with Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, and so forth. And we’ve tolerated this trade one-sidedness for over forty years; isn’t it past time to at least try and restore some sense of balance?

No you stupid right wing christian fox trumpkin drumper.  The acceptable answer to everything is Fuck trump. 

 

i woulda ran for office and fixed this entire mess if coach woulda put me in during state

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

3 minutes ago, SKJ said:

This is what I was saying earlier.

It's more than just a trade problem, it's a production problem.

 

Yeah, let’s tax those bastards who can sell us cheap shit!  That’s sensible!  

[F250 28,777]

I've posted this before but I will post it again. The U.S. trade deficit mirrors foreign capital investment into the U.S. economy. If the trade deficit is $500 billion dollars then we get $500 billion in foreign capital investment in the U.S. economy. The foreign investment balances the trade deficit. Money isn't permanently leaving the U.S.

 

[XYZ 2,154]

23 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Walt Rostow would kick your ass and wipe LBJs undies with your hair.  Your outrage is not only misplaced, it is misguided as fuck. 

I don’t know who Walt Rostov is, but I’m gonna go ahead and claim that I can kick his ass. And yours. And I don’t have outrage. Unlike you, I’m not American, and unlike you, if things get shitty enough in this country, I will pick up my shit and go somewhere else. So you see, I don’t really give a shit if y’all actually manage to fix your trade problem or not. But to pretend that you don’t have a trade problem is disingenuous. Also, you should try to keep your anger in check. I know you’ve had some hard things happen in your life, but lately you’ve been going off the rails too much here.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Wow, you claim to be an American and don’t know who Walt Rostow is, and can’t even spell it.   He engineered the greatest comeback in the world after WWII and was a professor at UT.   

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Sorry I missed where you said not American. And yes, you are right about the rails.  I have one on the left, one on the right, and I’m barreling down the middle fixing to plow your ass.  

Edited June 25, 2018 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Brisketexan 105,151]

I've posted this before but I will post it again. The U.S. trade deficit mirrors foreign capital investment into the U.S. economy. If the trade deficit is $500 billion dollars then we get $500 billion in foreign capital investment in the U.S. economy. The foreign investment balances the trade deficit. Money isn't permanently leaving the U.S.
 

Thank you for this. It’s a great, simple illustration of the push-pull that goes on not just one two levels, but thousands of levels, with respect to the economy.

It’s kind of like Hayden’s clean example of his $500 per month trade deficit with HEB (presuming it’s open). $500 goes from the US of Hayden to the Republic of HEB. Bad! Sad! DO SOMETHING! But wait...Hayden gets food, which fuels him to earn money. He gets medicine, which keeps him healthy. And he helps pay the salary of the checker. Who can now feed her kid, so he can learn and grow up to contribute, or at least stay out of prison, which costs us money. And HEB sends its money out to farmers, and manufacturers - including Hayden’s neighbor, who makes a great BBQ rub that HEB stocks. That helps Hayden’s neighbor maintain his house, so the neighborhood doesn’t get run down. Etc ad infinitum.

The purchase of goods is one piece of the global economy. And the rich guy is always going to buy more from the poor guy than the poor guys buy from him because...drumroll...he has more money to spend.

Trump’s approach make as much sense as me slapping tariffs on HEB’s goods (that I buy, dumbass) until HEB starts buying more canned peaches from me.

[Pods 7,552]

The answer to dealing with the trade surplus in China would be massively addressed by forcing them to comply with intellectual property rights. China is actually getting a far larger benefit from pilfered technology and knock-off brands than they are from their trade surplus with us.

Acting like a buffoon about tariffs gets us further from fixing this and incentivizes China to get even worse about intellectual property rights to counteract the larger tariffs we can impose. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Pods

[Hornius Emeritus 12,463]

 

[Washpark 176]

womp womp on post above.

 

Quote

Harley-Davidson said it will shift production of EU-bound motorcycles away from its US-based manufacturing sites as a result of Brussels’ decision to retaliate in kind against Washington’s tariffs on imported steel and aluminium.
 

The famed maker of motorcycles said the financial impact of the EU tariffs would be up to $100m per year. This makes the Milwaukee-based manufacturer one of the first US companies to detail the financial impact of the escalating trade tensions between Washington and its allies, and follows hard on the heels of Daimler, which last week issued a warning that its profits would be hit by new Chinese tariffs on US imports.

“Harley-Davidson believes the tremendous cost increase, if passed onto its dealers and retail customers, would have an immediate and lasting detrimental impact to its business in the region, reducing customer access to Harley-Davidson products and negatively impacting the sustainability of its dealers’ businesses,” the group said in a filing on Monday morning.

As a result, it said, it would not “raise its manufacturer’s suggested retail prices or wholesale prices to its dealers to cover the costs of the retaliatory tariffs.”

Instead, it will “be implementing a plan to shift production of motorcycles for EU destinations from the US to its international facilities to avoid the tariff burden.”

https://www.ft.com/content/54a6cc82-7867-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475

Edited June 25, 2018 by Washpark

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Getting a massive tax cut then still moving production overseas because of a baby starting a trade war, to own the libs.

[Js1 85,348]

4 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Getting a massive tax cut then still moving production overseas because of a baby starting a trade war, to own the libs.

Also the largest nail producer in the U.S. may be out of business by Labor Day

https://www.platts.com/latest-news/metals/louisville-kentucky/largest-us-nail-producer-says-tariffs-driving-10459556

Going out of business to own the libs.

At the Iowa GOP convention, not one single candidate for Iowa Ag Commissioner wanted to talk about the tariffs. Like the tax cuts, Republicans are just going to pretend they didn't happen when it comes to midterms.

Edited June 25, 2018 by Js1

[atomheartbevo 89,675]

The voters are damn sure not going to pretend they didn’t happen. 

And take jobs away from Trump supporters and they won’t be able to pay their bills with “but Obama” bucks. 

[Brisketexan 105,151]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The voters are damn sure not going to pretend they didn’t happen. 

And take jobs away from Trump supporters and they won’t be able to pay their bills with “but Obama” bucks. 

Your conclusion presumes rationality.

You presumption is incorrect.

Because "suck it, libs!"