Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Trump imposes steep tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines (More Tax Increases under consideration)
Source:
The Guardian
URL Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environ ... ar-panels-and-washing-machines
Published: Jan 25, 2018
Author: Reuters
Post Date: 2018-01-25 01:09:37 by Hondo68
Ping List: *The Two Parties ARE the Same* Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Keywords: tariff is a tax, crony capitalism, World Trade Organization
Views: 1195
Comments: 24
The US president, Donald Trump, has announced steep tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, giving a boost to Whirlpool Corp and dealing a setback to the renewable energy industry in the first of several potential trade restrictions. The decisions in the two “Section 201” safeguard cases followed findings by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) that both imported products “are a substantial cause of serious injury to domestic manufacturers,” US trade representative Robert Lighthizer said. The washer tariffs exceeded the harshest recommendations from ITC members, while the solar tariffs were lower than domestic producers had hoped for. The restrictions aim to help domestic manufacturers but drew complaints that consumer costs for new washers and solar installations will rise. Trump will impose a 20% tariff on the first 1.2m imported large residential washers in the first year, and a 50% tariff on machines above that number. The tariffs decline to 16% and 40% respectively in the third year. A 30% tariff will be imposed on imported solar cells and modules in the first year, with the tariffs declining to 15% by the fourth year. The tariff allows 2.5 gigawatts of unassembled solar cells to be imported tariff-free in each year. Whirlpool, which sought the washers “safeguard” action against rivals Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics after years of anti-dumping cases, saw its shares rise 1.8% in after-hours trade. “By enforcing our existing trade laws, President Trump has ensured American workers will compete on a level playing field with their foreign counterparts,” Whirlpool chairman, Jeff Fettig, said. The move punishes Samsung, which recently began washer production in South Carolina, and LG, which is building a washer factory in Tennessee. “This tariff is a tax on every consumer who wants to buy a washing machine. Everyone will pay more, with fewer choices,” Samsung said in a statement. LG Electronics said that the decision will hinder the ramp-up and employment prospects of its new plant, which will not begin production until late 2018 or early 2019. Trump ignored a recommendation from the ITC to exclude South Korean-produced washers from LG from the tariffs, as prior anti-dumping duties on these machines have been dropped. The decision could also hurt retailer Sears Holdings, whose Kenmore brand sources its larger washers from LG’s overseas factories. The tariffs are expected to slow a shift to renewable energy in the United States, just as solar was becoming cost competitive with electricity generated from fossil fuels like coal, an industry that Trump has pledged to protect. MJ Shiao, head of renewable energy research for Wood Mackenzie, said the tariffs would likely reduce projected US solar installations by 10-15% over the next five years. “It is a significant impact, but certainly not destructive to the end market,” Shiao said. The domestic solar panel producers who sought the trade remedies wanted tariffs of 50% – the highest allowed under law. Petitioners Suniva and SolarWorld have said they cannot compete with the influx of cheap imports, mostly from Chinese producers, which has caused solar panel prices to drop more than 30% since early 2016. The US solar trade group, the Solar Energy Industries Association, campaigned against the tariffs and estimated the decision would create a “crisis” for the burgeoning industry and result in the loss of 23,000 US jobs this year as billions of dollars in solar investments are cancelled. Suniva, majority-owned by Hong Kong-listed Shunfeng International Clean Energy Ltd, applauded the decision, saying that Trump “is sending a message that American innovation and manufacturing will not be bullied out of existence without a fight.” The decisions were the first of several potential tariff actions that Trump may take in the coming weeks and months. He is considering recommendations on import restrictions for steel and aluminium on national security grounds under a 1962 trade law and tariffs or other trade sanctions against China over its intellectual property practices. The intellectual property, washer and solar panel probes were done under a 1974 trade law that has been seldom invoked since the World Trade Organization was launched in 1995. Poster Comment: "giving a boost to Whirlpool Corp" 50% Whirlpool tax, when you buy a new washing machine. Pay to the government as tariff, or to Whirlpool in the form of a price increase. Make America Great Again with a HUGE laundry tax increase! /s 
A residential solar installation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Trump will impose a 30% tariff on imported solar cells and modules in the first year. Photograph: Sergio Flores/Getty Images 
Subscribe to *The Two Parties ARE the Same*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
We will either protect our jobs with tariffs, and thereby increase the price of goods to consumers, increasing the profits to domestic employers causing them to hire more people and pay those American people salaries and benefits. OR we will have no tariff, keep prices to consumers low, thereby keeping American unemployment higher, which means that unemployment benefits, Medicaid and welfare will be paid by the government out of higher taxes or deficit spending. Pick your poison: pay more for goods so that Americans can work. Or pay more in taxes so that the Americans who can't work have welfare benefits. It is not an equal choice: working people are healthier than the unemployed, burdening the system less. And unemployed men commit a LOT more crime than employed ones do: idle hands are the Devil's workshop. What free traders do is pretend that we can have the low priced goods and NOT have the unemployed thereby, or, if we do, that we can just cut off social welfare and let those Americans rot. Those rotting Americans VOTE, and if let to rot they will vote DEMOCRAT. This country's industrial base was BUILT UPON a protective tariff between Independence and World War I. The government was FUNDED by tariffs and land land sales in the 19th Century. But history is not a strong suit for free traders. They speak with an air of authority, but they do not take either history or the free rider problem into account. We have to have welfare benefits for the same reason we have to have environmental laws: the problems of mass unemployment and its intendant poverty, and of water and air pollution, are "not the company's problem" - it will do what it can to maximize profit. But it IS everybody else's problem, because we have to live in a world that is wracked with poverty and crime, or not, or riddled with pollution, or not. Some people ignore the free rider problem, pretend it doesn't exist. But it does, and we have to face it. Poverty balks the economy and increases crime, and also increases government. Tariffs balk the economy by increasing the price of goods. Between the two, it's a no brainer. Japan and China practice sophisticated, culture-based protectionism. That's WHY they have been able to become such powerhouses. So does the EU, the largest economy in the world. So did we, when we were growing to become the world's industrial colossus. Ignorance of history and hand-waving about theory are just that: ignorance and hand-waving. Bottom line: in a world of imperfect choices and trade-offs, Trump has made the right choice here.
in a world of imperfect choices and trade-offs, Trump has made the right choice here. Don't pay the Trump Whirlpool tax, Washtub 2020! Whirlpool México exports approximately 80% of its annual production of household appliances to the US and Canadian markets and to countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Belize, Nicaragua, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, Poland, Sweden, France, Aruba, Jordan and Israel, among others, making it a key part of the firm that has been a sector leader for over a century. "Several factors make Mexico a relevant and very attractive market for investments. For Whirlpool Mexico, the 'winners' in the country are its geographic location, its talented and highly skilled workforce and its programs or incentives that support innovation and technology development," says Adrián Estrada Montemayor, Legal and Institutional Relations VP at Whirlpool Mexico. Whirlpool Mexico's history goes back to 1987, when it operated as Vitromatic Comercial. In 2002 it became Whirlpool Mexico, embracing all that a name of such magnitude implies. Currently, Whirlpool is the leader in refrigerators manufacturing and exports in Mexico, and the second largest producer of other household appliances, such as washing machines and stoves. The firm has five plants –three in Apodaca, Nuevo León, that produce refrigerators and washing machines, as well as plastic parts for these products, one in Celaya, Guanajuato, that produces compact refrigerators and semiautomatic washing machines and one in Ramos Arizpe, Coahuila, that produces duplex refrigerators– and a workforce of close to 11,000 people. The line of household appliances manufactured, commercialized and distributed by Whirlpool Mexico includes manual, semiautomatic and automatic washing machines, dryers, freezers, duplex, single-door and compact refrigerators, builtin and free standing stoves, hoods, ovens, free standing and built-in dishwashers, microwaves and air conditioning units. In addition, the company has three technology centers with 100% Mexican human capital that develop new technologies and products. Whirlpool Mexico is constantly exporting innovative products to the rest of the corporation.
We should be developing employment in Mexico. The more employment in Mexico, the fewer low-skilled illegals come north for work. We should NOT be developing employment in China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and other overseas places, because that primarily simply exports jobs. When we employ people in Mexico, we take the strain off of our own immigration, welfare, education, medical and prison systems, so we get a substantial benefit that offsets the cost of paying benefits to a low- skilled American. None of that is true when we offshore the jobs to Asia. So, some form of NAFTA should stay, and we DO need to consider the well- being of the Mexican economy, precisely because we are joined at the hip by a long border that has no wall, yet, and that is not really guarded effectively at all. None of that is true with China. Mexico is part of our problem. It's in our wheelhouse and what happens to the poor there DIRECTLY affects American welfare expenditures BECAUSE of illegal mass immigration. That is not true of China or India or Africa thanks to oceans. Sure, there's SOME of it, but not millions and millions. We have to be realistic and intelligent. "One-size-fits-all" does not work for complicated problems.
We should NOT be developing employment in China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and other overseas places, because that primarily simply exports jobs. When we employ people in Mexico, we take the strain off of our own immigration, welfare, education, medical and prison systems, so we get a substantial benefit that offsets the cost of paying benefits to a low- skilled American. None of that is true when we offshore the jobs to Asia. So, some form of NAFTA should stay, and we DO need to consider the well- being of the Mexican economy, precisely because we are joined at the hip by a long border that has no wall, yet, and that is not really guarded effectively at all. None of that is true with China. Mexico is part of our problem. It's in our wheelhouse and what happens to the poor there DIRECTLY affects American welfare expenditures BECAUSE of illegal mass immigration. That is not true of China or India or Africa thanks to oceans. Sure, there's SOME of it, but not millions and millions. We have to be realistic and intelligent. "One-size-fits-all" does not work for complicated problems. Repeated in entirety because it is all true,and needs to be said over and over again until people stop their knees from jerking long enough to start to understand it.
It has already largely happened. There is a lot of manufacturing in Mexico. Their economy isn't that bad. It's the cartels that are out of control, kind of like Chicago under Capone.
The issue is the same as Prohibition. We lost the war on alcohol. Even Saudi Arabia has lost that war also: the expats brew their own hootch. We cannot win the war on drugs without resorting to wholesale mass murder. Duterte's violent war on drugs in the Philippines has claimed over 12,000 lives. It has not stopped drugs, and it will not. You can kill people, and have drugs in the society, and cause the drug users and pushers to become much more violent in response. Or you can give up, and have drugs in the society. Drugs are like sex: addictive, with a basic human drive towards them. That drive is very strong for those who are in pain, physical and psychological, and individual drives are, and always have been, stronger than the force of law. Even North Korea has a drug problem, and is unable to regulate private sex effectively. With drugs and sex we come to the limit of human law and power, and discover that even the thread of death will not cause the lawmakers to win. It merely raises the body count. The problem with body counts is that when the state kills enough of your relatives, you and your whole family become permanent enemies of that state, and will never, ever be loyal to it again. Think of how the Irish hate the English, or of how people still remember the excesses of the Reformation 500 years after the fact, with unforgiving and pitiless minds. All that a state can do by waging a deadly war on drugs or sex is ensure the permanent disloyalty of a larger and larger segment of its population. What happened to the Supreme General and Dictator Ghadaffi and his sons, or Saddam Hussein and his, is instructive. Outright maximum brutality never wins in the long run. Consider, even, the matter of US slavery and segregation and its aftermath. No quarter was given, and today no political quarter is given in return. Affirmative Action and racial discrimination laws are the law of the land, and they permanently alter the power structure away from the class that used to rule in favor of the class that was abused. Actions cause reactions. For the long-term good of third party bystanders - people in my position - it is better that drugs be legalized and a lot of people kill themselves, than that there should be a war on them and violent roving gangs kill each other, and militarized police fighting them become the redcoats. I am safer from the more dangerous threats if people are killing themselves peacefully with drugs in their homes and in public parks than I am if there is a war on between cartels, and police, and the drugs are not as easily available so the price is higher and people have an incentive to attack me and my home to pay for them. Somebody's gonna die no matter what. I don't use drugs, so that which shifts the risk of violent death away from me is what I favor. I believe that, on balance, legalizing drugs will make MY life better, as a non-user, safer, with less intrusive government, and I am willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of millions of addicts - by giving them what they want more easily through legalization - because it makes ME safer. Then, not dying from drugs is a mater of self-discipline and paying attention to other drivers. Today, not dying from the war on drugs has an unpleasant randomness to it that puts me at greater risk. Somebody is going to die. I would rather it be two or three drug users, in their homes, from heart attacks, then cut that down to one but with the mayhem and greater danger of the war on drugs. Others are less cold-blooded than I am in my calculation. I'm not going to use them in any case. I don't really care what people do as long as they don't do it in the streets and disturb the horses. I know we're not going to save many from my selves. And I am willing to sacrifice the lives of three to four times as many poor drug addicts, at their own hands, than to pay for and endure the abuses of an overmighty police force and face the random danger of the war on drugs. Legalizing drugs is much more dangerous to drug addicts and the weak. The war on drugs is much more dangerous to ME and MY family. Therefore, I say let the drug users kill themselves. After the big initial die offs, things will settle down, the costs of policing will be lower, there will be less crime, and the steady stream of bodies of young people destroyed by legal drugs will be the price. Either way it will touch me. The causal death rate from legal drugs is less disruptive of my life than the aggressive dangers of the war on drugs. And of course if we legalize in America, the Mexican cartels find themselves bereft of money, so the violence levels go way down in Mexico too. As for drug gang members and cartel members, honestly, why is El Chiapo still alive? There's no doubt as to his guilt. A bullet through his head - oopse, the camera was off - the cops do that all the time to people on the street - a more discerning pattern of police murder, taking out gang members, would make the streets safer for ME.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
I like your thinking here. I can't disagree with the rest of your remarks about prohibitionism, hence my comparison of Capone's Chicago.
That sounds so much like Jesus and his vision.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: Vicomte13, Gary Johnsons laundry room, A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
Whirlpool, a Key Link in the Appliances Industry
Whirlpool began operations in Mexico more than 25 years ago. In that time, the Mexican subsidiary has become a key part of the company worldwide, with exports to the North American, Central American, European and Asian markets.
#10. To: hondo68 (#7)
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
We should be developing employment in Mexico. The more employment in Mexico, the fewer low-skilled illegals come north for work.
#20. To: sneakypete (#18)
Repeated in entirety because it is all true,and needs to be said over and over again until people stop their knees from jerking long enough to start to understand it.
#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)
It has already largely happened. There is a lot of manufacturing in Mexico. Their economy isn't that bad. It's the cartels that are out of control, kind of like Chicago under Capone.
Replies to Comment # 21. As for drug gang members and cartel members, honestly, why is El Chiapo still alive? There's no doubt as to his guilt. A bullet through his head - oopse, the camera was off - the cops do that all the time to people on the street - a more discerning pattern of police murder, taking out gang members, would make the streets safer for ME.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
Somebody's gonna die no matter what. I don't use drugs, so that which shifts the risk of violent death away from me is what I favor. I believe that, on balance, legalizing drugs will make MY life better, as a non-user, safer, with less intrusive government, and I am willing to sacrifice the lives of tens of millions of addicts - by giving them what they want more easily through legalization - because it makes ME safer.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]