[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Trump's Steel Tariffs Will Help, Not Hurt, China The proposed tariffs are an exercise in ego, not economics.President Donald Trump apparently believes that "trade wars are good, and easy to win." They are neither. And, in fact, Trump's plan to slap a 25 percent tariff on all steel imports—something the president is considering as a way to help American steel manufacturers by protecting them from international competition—might indirectly boost China's steel industry while punishing some of America's top allies and trading partners, along with the very American workers the president supposedly wants to help. If the tariffs trigger a trade war, something analysts say could happen, then China probably stands to gain further. Trump loves to talk about how China has been "killing" U.S. manufacturing, and to blame China for dumping cheap steel into the American market. In reality, the U.S. imported $976 million worth of steel from China in 2017 (up from $906 million the year before), which means China accounted for barely more than 3 percent of all steel imports.
The United States imported far more steel from places like Japan ($1.65 billion), Brazil ($2.44 billion), and South Korea ($2.78 billion) last year. The largest exporter of steel to the United States is Canada, which sent more than 5.6 million metric tons of the stuff worth more than $5.1 billion across the border during 2017. The new tariffs will be applied to all steel imports, which means close allies like Japan, Korea, and Canada will be hurt by the tariffs more than Trump's favored enemy of China. "Hitting China and Canada with the same tariff doesn't penalize China relative to anyone else," says Dan Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "That doesn't, and shouldn't, sit well with exporters from countries that have done nothing wrong."
Think about it like this. Trump's tariff will build a protectionist wall around American steel manufacturers, but it won't entirely stop the flow of foreign steel into the country. Because the wall will be the same height for all imports, the cheaper Chinese steel that Trump likes to vilify will still have an advantage over all other sources. Meanwhile, American businesses that rely on steel imports will have to pay higher prices, which will be passed along to consumers. All steel-made products will be more expensive if the tariffs are imposed—and the same is true for aluminum products if Trump follows through with his threat to impose a 10 percent tariff on them. That's part of the reason why the stock market dropped 420 points immediately after Trump's surprise announcement of the tariff proposal last week. As Matt Welch explained on Friday, Barack Obama's tariffs on Chinese tires cost American consumers an estimated $1.1 billion in return for preserving 1,200 jobs in the domestic tire industry, while George W. Bush's duties on foreign steel destroyed some 200,000 jobs in other sectors, exceeding the total employment of the American steel industry. Michael Froman, former United States trade representative during the Obama administration, tells Vox that there's little doubt China is engaged in some unfair trading when it comes to steel and aluminum. The problem, though, is that Trump's tariff proposal "does very little, if anything, to affect China." "Instead, we're hitting our closest allies and partners with a set of tariffs under the justification of national security," he says. Those same concerns are causing some Republicans in Congress to challenge the president's proposal. On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said "China wins" if tariffs increase prices for American consumers or create conflict between the United States and its major trading partners. "You're punishing the American consumer and our allies. You're making a huge mistake," Graham said on CBS' Face The Nation. "Go after China—not the rest of the world." That's really just the start. China could respond to the Trump tariffs by imposing their own import taxes on American-made products like soy beans, airplanes, or computer technology. If China doesn't respond directly, other countries might. A trade war that draws new protectionist tariffs from the European Union aimed at American exports would harm both trading partners, and indirectly boost China. Already, European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker has promised to "not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk," and Chrystia Freeland, Canada's foreign minister, has threatened to take "responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers." If the trade war escalates to the extend that current trade agreements are jeopardized, it could drive a wedge between the United States and it's major allies. In that environment, Ikenson warns, China could get away with more rule violations due to the lack of "a coherent, unified response." In other words, Trump's tariffs and the trade wars they could initiate might indeed be "good and easy to win," but not for the United States. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26. They are right. You are an anti American dicktard. You should move to Amsterdam where you can do all the drugs you want doper.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1) (Edited) Barack Obama's tariffs on Chinese tires cost American consumers an estimated $1.1 billion in return for preserving 1,200 jobs in the domestic tire industry, while George W. Bush's duties on foreign steel destroyed some 200,000 jobs in other sectors, exceeding the total employment of the American steel industry. Were you for Obama's tariffs, or are tariffs only "good" when Trump says they are?
#7. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#4) (Edited)
#9. To: Gatlin (#7) Am I making any sense at all to you. GLOBALIST? Seems to me that you are on record as supporting the globalist agenda with your hatred of the Constitution. I presented an opinion piece on why Trump's ideas may not be in the best interest of the nation. Apparently any criticism of Der Führer or his policies is not allowed on this site. LF has turned into a regular echo chamber with the Trump cultists in charge.
#10. To: Deckard (#9) Well LF will never be an echo chamber for destroying America by deindustrializing us and telling the youth illegal drugs are a virtue. In other words you're a dork who wants to live in a lawless drug state. Globalists are for so called free trade. Patriots are for tariffs like the founders. I get it you are a phoney.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10) (Edited) telling the youth illegal drugs are a virtue Can't stop lying, can you asshole?
BTW - here's another article from a CONSERVATIVE publication, The Washington Examiner. Trump's tariffs are a very bad idea, but at least they will annoy China President Trump is making a mistake with his plan to introduce 25 percent tariffs on steel imports and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports. Doing so risks an economically damaging trade war with close allies like Canada, the European Union, and Japan. Moreover, if the president is serious about maintaining his tariffs for "a long time," he'll drive up the cost of car purchases and building projects. He'll also reduce efficiency in high-end economic sectors where the U.S. enjoys a comparative advantage, such as airplane construction. In addition, this choice risks undercutting U.S. alliances the world over. This is especially true in the Indo-Pacific region, where U.S. commitment to free trade sets us apart from China and offers the U.S. growing access to lucrative export markets. In essence, Trump is rewarding hundreds of thousands of workers in the steel and aluminum industries and punishing hundreds of millions of Americans. The policy is both morally and economically illiterate. Here's some info about the Examiner: When Anschutz first started the Examiner in its daily newspaper format, he envisioned creating a competitor to The Washington Post with a conservative editorial line. According to Politico, "When it came to the editorial page, Anschutz's instructions were explicit—he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee." The Examiner's writers have included Michael Barone, Tim Cavanaugh, David Freddoso, Tara Palmeri, Rudy Takala, and Byron York.
The Examiner endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Conservatives are questioning Trump's policies too - not just libertarians. Your knee-jerk and vitriolic, spittle-flecked posts that claim I'm a globalist are outright lies. And your insinuations that I am against the War on Drugs so kids will get hooked is slander at its worst. Be honest for once in your life - can you do that?
#14. To: Deckard (#11) You have become an establishment neocon.
#17. To: A K A Stone, l Gatlin (#14) You have become an establishment neocon. Why, because I post some articles that are critical of his policies? Whatever dude - you think anyone who who is critical of Trump in any way is a neocon. Come on man - how stupid is that? Your reasoning skills are a joke. Same old false dichotomy you have always tried to pull. If you don't support Trump - you love Hillary. If you disagree with Trump, you are a neocon. If you support a third party, you are a commie. If you want to see the War on Drugs end, you are in favor of heroin vending machines in elementary schools. If you want to see cops held acocuntable for their actions, then you are a cop hater Yada,yada, yada. You are also a proponent of turning America into a drug state.
You just can't stop lying, can you asshole. My position is that your miserable War on Drugs is an abject FAILURE and it's time to try something different. Prohibition of alcohol created the same problems as we have now, yet we learned from that. Apparently you've never heard the saying "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
#21. To: Deckard (#17) My position is that your miserable War on Drugs is an abject FAILURE and it's time to try something different. We're you so stupid you thought the war on drugs would eliminate immoral drug use? If so that is really dumb.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#21) We're you so stupid you thought the war on drugs would eliminate immoral drug use? Trump's plan to execute drug dealers should do the trick, right?
Replies to Comment # 26. Trump's plan to execute drug dealers should do the trick, right? Execute heroin dealers and crack dealers and fetenol dealers. Slap pot heads with a 100 dollar fine.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 26. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|