Canada hits back at 'punitive' U.S. tariffs in 'turning point' in relations(theprovince.com)
theprovince.com
Canada hits back at 'punitive' U.S. tariffs in 'turning point' in relations
http://theprovince.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/newsalert-canada-responds-to-u-s-tariffs-with-its-own-countermeasures/
119 comments
Even though this decision may potentially affect my TN status in the states and more importantly will result in negative consequences for both countries, I am 100% behind Trudeau on this.
I'm in the same situation, and I agree. On some level it could be good for Canada to have all the TN folks back. Maybe bad for us in the short term, but the effects could ripple.
If NAFTA talks don't work out, folks like you and me with our TNs are actually going to start worrying about how we're going to keep our jobs.
And here I thought Canada wasn't one of Trump's "shithole countries".
And here I thought Canada wasn't one of Trump's "shithole countries".
anyone who can't or definitely won't vote for him is likely part of the shithole
I'm not exactly sure how the United States trying to walk back an agreement (NAFTA) and slapping tariffs on our allies makes Canada a "shithole country".
If anything, it makes us the shitty neighbor.
If anything, it makes us the shitty neighbor.
It was a sarcastic reference to Trump’s “shithole countries” remarks about African nations last year.
Oh, I know what it was about. I was just pointing out that Canada is clearly not a "shithole country" and that the current US attitude towards our long-time allies everywhere makes us the shithole country.
Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
Seems easy to do since he's refused to separate himself from his business interests when he assumed the presidency.
I am finding it difficult to accept this is the reality we live in:
"the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen."
"the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen."
But I thought Trump couldn't be bought because he's a self-made businessman who tells it like it is, no hassle, no haggle, no bullshit, unlike those effete city dwellers and globalist politicians?
Is America Great Again yet? A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?
Don't worry about steel, we'll open the steel mills up again. We have to build plenty of new aircraft carriers so we'll need a lot of steel. And they'll have steam catapults, none of this newfangled computer nonsense. And the wall. The wall will be steel, too, of course, so when the Mexicans try to climb up it they'll just slide right back down. In fact, we'll need two walls now, one for the Canadians, too.
Sigh.
I wonder if this one will fondle Angela Merkel too?
Is America Great Again yet? A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?
Don't worry about steel, we'll open the steel mills up again. We have to build plenty of new aircraft carriers so we'll need a lot of steel. And they'll have steam catapults, none of this newfangled computer nonsense. And the wall. The wall will be steel, too, of course, so when the Mexicans try to climb up it they'll just slide right back down. In fact, we'll need two walls now, one for the Canadians, too.
Sigh.
I wonder if this one will fondle Angela Merkel too?
> But I thought Trump couldn't be bought
As it turns out, the surface area for attack is much greater.
As it turns out, the surface area for attack is much greater.
Don't forget that the wall needs to be see-through, so you can see if any Mexicans are trying to catapult drugs over, which might land on and kill innocent Americans.
Oh, and we can put solar panels on the wall, which will help pay for the wall with the power generated, even though the Mexicans are paying for the wall via increased tariffs on Mexican goods, forcing American consumers to pay more.
Oh, and we can put solar panels on the wall, which will help pay for the wall with the power generated, even though the Mexicans are paying for the wall via increased tariffs on Mexican goods, forcing American consumers to pay more.
If the trade wars continue escalating, I don't see how this is going to end well.
Retaliatory trade sanctions have worked against America but it took almost a year for the reprecussions to bubble up and make the President change his mind after the 2002 steel tariffs were enacted by the Bush administration. The Trump specific sanctions do seem like a ripe target for a more immediate response this time.
[deleted]
What a fantastic idea.
That's exactly what the US does to folks (e.g. Putin's friends) when they do stupid, I'm surprised that no nations have considered doing the same with Donald and his friends/family.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/companies/trump-organiz...
Though this is a carrot instead of a stick.
Though this is a carrot instead of a stick.
because Putin and Co. are ultra-corrupt murderous oligarchs.
The article itself explicitly makes the comparison to the US Magnitsky Act.
[deleted]
That sounds a whole lot more like a national security issue than the tariffs.
Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
Well, not so much states that voted for Trump, but small-population states that rack up lots of Senate votes. Put punitive tariffs on corn, soybean, and pork exports, and you'll have a dozen senators imploring Trump to back off.
Interesting that it's perfectly legal for foreign nations to pressure folks into voting one way or another by punishing them for voting in a particular president (and possibly hurting his/his party's chances of re-election), but it's not if they run ads to try and pursuade voters.
It's almost like indirect election influencing vs direct election influencing (Russia in 2016). Somehow one is bad, but the other isn't.
It's almost like indirect election influencing vs direct election influencing (Russia in 2016). Somehow one is bad, but the other isn't.
It’s completely fair to target them since they’re responsible for choosing the administration who initiated this, and it’s totally clear what’s going on. Very different than dishonest manipulation of people’s ideas through fabrications. Targeted consequences to actions as a retaliation are very different to secret manipulation ahead of an election.
I think it's a question of enforcement. You can enforce direct influence in the US because it usually happens on US soil or via US companies but indirect influence via tariffs is nearly impossible since foreign countries largely get to impose rules about what happens in their own country and this is what tariffs are.
The difference is when a US candidate works with a foreign power to win. You really don't see the distinction?
Foreign governments do lobby our government, and register for the privilege. This is not the same as Trump Jr conspiring with Russians in Trump tower.
Foreign governments do lobby our government, and register for the privilege. This is not the same as Trump Jr conspiring with Russians in Trump tower.
All's fair in love and [trade] war.
It's not about targeting people because they voted for Trump. It's about targeting a small, export-focused segment of the economy that has outsized political power. Agricultural sectors of the economy tend to fit this billet in pretty much every country, which is why agricultural tariffs are the thorniest parts of trade agreements.
To be fair, targeting small republican states can be effective, while targeting democrat states would be totally ineffective considering they would vote against the president anyways.
China had already prepared to do exactly this. Notice what they said they will raise tariffs: pigs, soybeans, etc. A lot of farming states which are core Trump supporters.
That's exactly what they do already. That's why the EU is putting tariffs on things like Bourbon Whiskey.
> Could also use tariffs to try and hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest
"The European Union will hit back at the heart of the United States, slapping tariffs on products like Harley-Davidsons, Kentucky bourbon and bluejeans, if President Trump goes ahead with a plan to place tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president of the bloc’s executive arm vowed on Friday."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/business/europe-steel-tar...
"The European Union will hit back at the heart of the United States, slapping tariffs on products like Harley-Davidsons, Kentucky bourbon and bluejeans, if President Trump goes ahead with a plan to place tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the president of the bloc’s executive arm vowed on Friday."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/business/europe-steel-tar...
> hit the states that voted for Trump the hardest.
These tariffs were targeted at congressional leaders:
" "The idea is, you look at a map of the congressional districts of the United States, you look at which members of Congress are in leadership positions and then you look at the big industries in those districts and then you draw up your list accordingly," she said. "And this list was clearly drawn up with this in mind." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toi...)
These tariffs were targeted at congressional leaders:
" "The idea is, you look at a map of the congressional districts of the United States, you look at which members of Congress are in leadership positions and then you look at the big industries in those districts and then you draw up your list accordingly," she said. "And this list was clearly drawn up with this in mind." (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toi...)
Notice of intent to impose countermeasures action against the United States in response to tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum products:
https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp
https://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/consult/cacsap-cmpcaa-eng.asp
Can you imagine trying to negotiate with this administration?
The way to "negotiate" with the Trump administration involves contributing to the Trump businesses.
The rule should be:"We don't negotiate with narcissists."
Is this true? Do you have an example?
"Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen."
From the Maclean's article in the top comment.
From the Maclean's article in the top comment.
HN shouldn't regurgitate political hit pieces.
Ivanka Trump's business has trademarks registered throughout the world... it is no great honor to get a trademark registered in China.
Qatar did not invest in Kushener's office tower.
And, a payment to Cohen by Ukrsine has been denied. (And, in any case, would be perfectly legal so long as the appropriate lobbying paperwork was filled out.)
Qatar did not invest in Kushener's office tower.
And, a payment to Cohen by Ukrsine has been denied. (And, in any case, would be perfectly legal so long as the appropriate lobbying paperwork was filled out.)
No, I don't have "an" example, but there are a many if you bother to look.
http://fortune.com/2018/05/09/michael-cohen-corporate-relati...
http://fortune.com/2018/05/09/michael-cohen-corporate-relati...
How about this one? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/15/17355202/t...
"As I’ve pointed out before, the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen."
From this article: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
Also China's loan for Trumps indonesian project and the rumoured Russian financing/laundering and Trumps positive behaviour toward Russia/Putin.
While possibly coincidence, there certainly seems correlation between countries that are treated favourable and helping Trump family business interests.
From this article: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
Also China's loan for Trumps indonesian project and the rumoured Russian financing/laundering and Trumps positive behaviour toward Russia/Putin.
While possibly coincidence, there certainly seems correlation between countries that are treated favourable and helping Trump family business interests.
The 1900's called they want their trade policies back. Throughout the history of countries when has this pattern not repeated itself.
People suffer->People elect a person with an ability to corrupt social discourse and/or the legislative body -> Time passes -> System breaks down.
The undermining and corruption can be subtle at first and likely takes time, but it spreads eventually to every corner. Trade suffering is just a symptom of a bigger problem: A lack of healthier political discourse.
Take India for example, where strong men and goons in the 20th century figured why just play second fiddle to politicians, lets become them. Today roughly 2/3rd or more members of the upper and lower houses of Parliament have criminal cases against them. It is somewhat democratic(ish) and free market(ishhh).
If people don't make the hard choices who will? If they don't care about the system of checks and balance in the name of "fairness" and no more "PC" who will? A lot of this has to do with education and a understanding of why the system of checks and balances is worth fighting for.
Addendum to what Ben Franklin said, "Those who give up their voices to forgo democratic norms over short term gains, might just end up loosing all those things (voices, democracy and gains)"
People suffer->People elect a person with an ability to corrupt social discourse and/or the legislative body -> Time passes -> System breaks down.
The undermining and corruption can be subtle at first and likely takes time, but it spreads eventually to every corner. Trade suffering is just a symptom of a bigger problem: A lack of healthier political discourse.
Take India for example, where strong men and goons in the 20th century figured why just play second fiddle to politicians, lets become them. Today roughly 2/3rd or more members of the upper and lower houses of Parliament have criminal cases against them. It is somewhat democratic(ish) and free market(ishhh).
If people don't make the hard choices who will? If they don't care about the system of checks and balance in the name of "fairness" and no more "PC" who will? A lot of this has to do with education and a understanding of why the system of checks and balances is worth fighting for.
Addendum to what Ben Franklin said, "Those who give up their voices to forgo democratic norms over short term gains, might just end up loosing all those things (voices, democracy and gains)"
Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.
The US when it was industrializing? China now? Protectionism can be good for large nations/markets catching up to other nations/markets.
US was industrializing throughout the 1800's, there are empty/converted factories all up and down the East Coast from these. In New England, it was a lot of textiles, metalworking, shoes, parts, etc. What tariffs protected that growth? To me it seems to be a rising production due to rising demand for those products, as factories/mass production wasn't common prior to 1800.
The US had protective tariffs and regulations (along with a lack of free trade agreements) which definitely protected foreign goods and companies from entering the country. Protective tariffs literally started with George Washington with the goal of "the encouragement and protection of manufactures".
Tariffs on corn prompted a guy called James Wilson to create The Economist, of course you may or may not regard that as a positive outcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History
Canada has been arguing with the US about dairy for a while. Protecting that industry, you could argue, actually is a national security issue and tariffs are needed because of the massive production of the US.
IIRC haiti allowed tariff free dairy and now pretty much don't have that industry anymore.
IIRC haiti allowed tariff free dairy and now pretty much don't have that industry anymore.
I can't point to any specific examples, but tariffs are generally more effective, or at least less harmful when targeted on luxury goods.
Tariffs on general goods like steel, food, or oil just increase costs for the whole population.
Tariffs on general goods like steel, food, or oil just increase costs for the whole population.
Tariffs can be good for big companies and other special interests in a country, but never for the country as a whole.
So when you ask if they result in "better economic or social outcome", you have to be careful to think about "for who?".
So when you ask if they result in "better economic or social outcome", you have to be careful to think about "for who?".
That's definitely not true. Tariffs have allowed China to bootstrap a local tech industry. It's been extremely beneficial for them.
Not necessarily.
Let say you are a large developing country and you want to bootstrap a domestic car industry. The first cars coming out will probably not be that great as you don't have the engineering knowledge or the experience building cars yet.
Cars built by foreign companies are definitively better, and maybe cheaper to buy and/or to operate.
If you do nothing, this new car industry would die quite soon.
So you impose tariffs on foreign cars, that way your domestic production is protected, and you are able to make it grow and make it better. However be careful to not protect it too much, otherwise it will keep producing crappy cars looking like Trabant. With time you decrease the protection progressively.
Another less abstract example is food, for instance, rice production and tariffs in Haiti:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti
Let say you are a large developing country and you want to bootstrap a domestic car industry. The first cars coming out will probably not be that great as you don't have the engineering knowledge or the experience building cars yet.
Cars built by foreign companies are definitively better, and maybe cheaper to buy and/or to operate.
If you do nothing, this new car industry would die quite soon.
So you impose tariffs on foreign cars, that way your domestic production is protected, and you are able to make it grow and make it better. However be careful to not protect it too much, otherwise it will keep producing crappy cars looking like Trabant. With time you decrease the protection progressively.
Another less abstract example is food, for instance, rice production and tariffs in Haiti:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Haiti
So while you protect the local industry, your population is forced to overpay for inferior cars. I think we agree on that fact.
You're saying that that is more than compensated for by the later emergence of a competitive car industry, and the various wealth effects it spreads across the nation over many following decades.
I just don't think there is empirical support for that. I'm sure you can cherry pick examples in hindsight, but if you do an honest accounting of these attempts, including those that failed I don't think it looks good.
Except for the favored industry of course, who makes a nice living during the protected era.
You're saying that that is more than compensated for by the later emergence of a competitive car industry, and the various wealth effects it spreads across the nation over many following decades.
I just don't think there is empirical support for that. I'm sure you can cherry pick examples in hindsight, but if you do an honest accounting of these attempts, including those that failed I don't think it looks good.
Except for the favored industry of course, who makes a nice living during the protected era.
Seems to be working for china.
I believe Ecuador had a short run where they closed up some of their economy and it paid off for a bit, but they were hardly operating like a large global trading nation before that...
Why would Germany invade Canada?
More seriously, I will be pretty surprised if this particular stupidity escalates to any kind of military action.
More seriously, I will be pretty surprised if this particular stupidity escalates to any kind of military action.
It probably won't directly escalate to military action, but the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 did make it a lot easier for the Nazis to take power in 1932.
Edit: I'd be grateful for an explanation for why this might be getting downvoted.
Edit: I'd be grateful for an explanation for why this might be getting downvoted.
Protective tariffs are a good idea for protecting nascent industries from essentially foreign competition. Many countries in Asia essentially locked foreign goods from certain industries during the later half of the 20th century to help build their own industries post WW 2. They ended up opening their economy once their domestic players hit a critical stage where they could compete with international players. For example, India closed off their soda, car, and other markets to spark a homegrown industry. In the 1990s they liberalized the economy and opened it to the international megacorps, but many of the domestic companies still remain in some form and there are large manufacturing plants still from that era. So it is entirely possible that protective tariffs can help for long term growth when done strategically.
However, I highly doubt any of Trump's tariff's are strategically smart.
However, I highly doubt any of Trump's tariff's are strategically smart.
Tariffs, and protectionism, are such an extreme measure. It should only be used against countries that you're going to war with. They should never be used in the course of normal trade.
America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?
America is like 50 countries with open border & free trade policy between them. Can you imagine what would happen if states decided to impose tariffs on each other?
Canada's dairy industry has had a long history of protection. It is likely that this industry would not exist without this protection.
It's true, the dairy farmers here in Canada act like an full fledged mafia
So does the US. The vast majority of dairy farmers receive subsidies or they would not be "profitable", averaging $280 million per year over the past 20 years (some year it's $10M, while another its $1B). Everyday we dump over 250,000 gallons of milk. There is a reason why milk is cheaper in the US than Canada.
I don’t know enough about them to comment but situations like that is why trade agreements have tribunals and things go through the WTO etc etc. It’s a very complex balance with complex systems.
Canada also imports more than four times the dairy than it exports: http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?id=3803 (poutine 2-3 times per day adds up I guess).
Trump’s only direct authority for imposing steel tariffs is a narrow national security clause which is absurd and insulting to use against Canada and demonstrates that America can’t be trusted.
Even if a future president tries to rebuild international relationships I would be hesitant to waste years of effort working out any international agreement with America when the next TV populist president can easily tear it up. Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down.
Canada also imports more than four times the dairy than it exports: http://www.cdc-ccl.gc.ca/CDC/index-eng.php?id=3803 (poutine 2-3 times per day adds up I guess).
Trump’s only direct authority for imposing steel tariffs is a narrow national security clause which is absurd and insulting to use against Canada and demonstrates that America can’t be trusted.
Even if a future president tries to rebuild international relationships I would be hesitant to waste years of effort working out any international agreement with America when the next TV populist president can easily tear it up. Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down.
> Unfortunately it takes a lot more effort to build things than tear them down
I think it will take many, many years to rebuild the positive reputation that the US had among it's allies. At least from the people I've interacted with there is a universal hate for Trump at a level that I have never seen before, across a wide cross section of society. The man is reprehensible.
It takes a while to get over that, and he will forever be there. Also if he is the new normal then God help us all.
I think it will take many, many years to rebuild the positive reputation that the US had among it's allies. At least from the people I've interacted with there is a universal hate for Trump at a level that I have never seen before, across a wide cross section of society. The man is reprehensible.
It takes a while to get over that, and he will forever be there. Also if he is the new normal then God help us all.
It’s a horrible idea to get rid of your local industry of basic, vital needs. A country could squeeze your balls by cutting off exports to you.
In what sense is milk a vital need, though? Millions of people live without it.
> Millions of people live without it [milk].
Many more depend on dairy.
Many more depend on dairy.
I think you mean sanctions, not tariffs or quotas. There is not a single country that does not apply tariffs or quotas.
You call them sanctions when you talk about your enemies, you call them tariffs when you do it to your friends. The difference is nearly 0.
Sanctions involve a total ban on trade. tariffs involve a tax on imports, quota impose a limit on imports. If only 0 was an asymptote it would fit your description.
Think of ban as a variable between 0 - 1. Sanctions = 1.0 and Tarrifs < 1.0. Tarrifs are sanctions.
(Increasing taxes on something is a partial ban).
(Increasing taxes on something is a partial ban).
Singapore doesn't. Not in the trade protectionist sense anyway.
Not really, even Singapore has its duties. It's only 0% for everything if you're going for re-export.
https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes...
https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes...
Excise is a bit different to tariffs though. Even if you produced those items in Singapore you pay the same excise.
The 20% on cars isn't to protect the (non-existent) car manufacturing industry of Singapore, but to reduce demand for cars.
The 20% on cars isn't to protect the (non-existent) car manufacturing industry of Singapore, but to reduce demand for cars.
Not quite.
When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both.
If they are both open, it's generally good for both.
But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country.
So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not.
It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons, arguably quality, but the way Japanese business syndicates work, they'll keep America out, irrespective of what the government says.
This was a huge thing in the 1980's and is the 'memory' that gripes Trump.
As for China - we don't have open trade with them.
America is considerably more open than China.
+ China has massive state-owned agencies, the subsidized markets
+ They have a 100% politically controlled currency
+ They have political capital controls
+ They require foreign entities to hand over key IP
+ They have any number of barriers (some on purpose, some not so much) to foreign participation.
+ China does not pursue those breaking IP rules.
China has had these advantages for some time, it's just that when they were poor, nobody really cared, but as they get powerful, it becomes an issue.
So the only choice is to play 'hardball' with such nations - because these nations won't react to anything else, and they'll only react to threats that are credible.
As for Europe, it's a different bag, but America has some decent beefs with Germany in particular.
As for NAFTA - that's a tough one. I don't think America has such a huge advantage, but wages are weaker in Cana/Mex which gives big opportunities in some ways ... but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. So the NAFTA gripe is more difficult to understand.
Put another way - the US has been having a 'trade war' with China for 30 years, it just wasn't ever a big deal.
And there are some issues (cars) that America has a reasonable beef with on Germany, for example.
I think Trump is a douche but he's not 'all wrong' on these things.
When 2 nations are each protective, it's bad for both.
If they are both open, it's generally good for both.
But - if one protects in a sneaky way, and the other is open - the it's amazing for the protectionist country.
So nations strive to be 'open' but then to sneak in stuff, or rather, sometimes they are open, but really are not.
It's impossible for American companies to sell into Japan for many reasons, arguably quality, but the way Japanese business syndicates work, they'll keep America out, irrespective of what the government says.
This was a huge thing in the 1980's and is the 'memory' that gripes Trump.
As for China - we don't have open trade with them.
America is considerably more open than China.
+ China has massive state-owned agencies, the subsidized markets
+ They have a 100% politically controlled currency
+ They have political capital controls
+ They require foreign entities to hand over key IP
+ They have any number of barriers (some on purpose, some not so much) to foreign participation.
+ China does not pursue those breaking IP rules.
China has had these advantages for some time, it's just that when they were poor, nobody really cared, but as they get powerful, it becomes an issue.
So the only choice is to play 'hardball' with such nations - because these nations won't react to anything else, and they'll only react to threats that are credible.
As for Europe, it's a different bag, but America has some decent beefs with Germany in particular.
As for NAFTA - that's a tough one. I don't think America has such a huge advantage, but wages are weaker in Cana/Mex which gives big opportunities in some ways ... but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways. So the NAFTA gripe is more difficult to understand.
Put another way - the US has been having a 'trade war' with China for 30 years, it just wasn't ever a big deal.
And there are some issues (cars) that America has a reasonable beef with on Germany, for example.
I think Trump is a douche but he's not 'all wrong' on these things.
> but it also keeps Can/Mex standard of living lower in many ways.
I'm curious what ways you would argue Canada has a significantly lower standard of living.
I'm curious what ways you would argue Canada has a significantly lower standard of living.
"I'm curious what ways you would argue Canada has a significantly lower standard of living."
I'm Canadian.
Our GDP/cap is usually lower.
I work in tech, my salary is less than 1/2 what it would be in the US (not just Silicon Valley).
Most goods are more expensive here.
We do have Universal Health care, and generally good schools and Unis, it's generally safer, cops are more low key etc. etc.
It's hard to compare societies, and I think the US could learn a lot from our system, but in most 'individual metrics' Canada is just poorer, economically. (Though I'd hate to be poor in the US.) There's just so, so much more economic activity and points of prosperity in the US sometimes I find it mind-boggling, again, it's a lot of Apples to Oranges admittedly.
I'm Canadian.
Our GDP/cap is usually lower.
I work in tech, my salary is less than 1/2 what it would be in the US (not just Silicon Valley).
Most goods are more expensive here.
We do have Universal Health care, and generally good schools and Unis, it's generally safer, cops are more low key etc. etc.
It's hard to compare societies, and I think the US could learn a lot from our system, but in most 'individual metrics' Canada is just poorer, economically. (Though I'd hate to be poor in the US.) There's just so, so much more economic activity and points of prosperity in the US sometimes I find it mind-boggling, again, it's a lot of Apples to Oranges admittedly.
> I work in tech, my salary is less than 1/2 what it would be in the US (not just Silicon Valley).
Yes, but I'd argue that SV income might look higher, but after you try living there you'd gladly go back to Canadian expenses if the compromise was that you also had to take your Canadian income once again. Also, income inequality in Canada isn't as bad as the US (yet...)
Yes, but I'd argue that SV income might look higher, but after you try living there you'd gladly go back to Canadian expenses if the compromise was that you also had to take your Canadian income once again. Also, income inequality in Canada isn't as bad as the US (yet...)
Why? Do you think people are too stupid to do basic math? Totally ignorant of their monthly expenses? What is it that compels people like you to bring up "cost of living" as though anyone who says "higher salary" is a complete moron?
Is it just bay area zealots on both sides embracing the meme that "IT'S SO EXPENSIVE".
We get it. we know. We don't look at SF and go "oh wow, 10 k more a year" while paying 2000 a month more in rent. We look at it and go "oh wow, 110k more a year, even with the rents thats a lot of money".
Is it just bay area zealots on both sides embracing the meme that "IT'S SO EXPENSIVE".
We get it. we know. We don't look at SF and go "oh wow, 10 k more a year" while paying 2000 a month more in rent. We look at it and go "oh wow, 110k more a year, even with the rents thats a lot of money".
I’m not saying everyone cannot do the math, but for sure, lots of people are in denial of the math.
Canadians are on average happier and live longer. I really don't see how you can argue there's a lower standard of living.
Also, isn't the median household income higher in Canada than the US?
Also, isn't the median household income higher in Canada than the US?
No, but they are apparently 6th and 7th with a pretty marginal difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
honestly, the thing that made me question was lumping Canada in with Mexico. Not shitting on Mexico, but the standard of living there is clearly lower.
honestly, the thing that made me question was lumping Canada in with Mexico. Not shitting on Mexico, but the standard of living there is clearly lower.
So am I, and I make less money but my standard of living isn't that much higher. Certainly less than I would expect making twice as much. Our HDI is the same. GDP per capita in the states is about 10k higher, but Gini is lower in Canada.
And the US Dollar is NOT a 100% politically controlled currency, in your view?
It would be wild to claim that USD is a politically controlled currency, to the point of conspiratorial, and the onus would be on you to provide proof that Trump et. al. are controlling interest rates or Fed programs. He most definitely is not.
There is no direct link between the executive/legislative and the Fed.
The Fed does what's roughly best for American economy, which disproportionately favours those with assets, banks etc. - but they are fairly independent in normal times.
In times of crises, you could start to point to some things like all those homes right now sitting on the Fed balance sheet, surely. But regular operations are not politically controlled.
But in China, the currency is literally worth whatever the government wants it to be at any time. They can literally press a button and 'poof'.
Because of the amazing control and power of the Chinese government, the RMB might be the most tightly politically controlled currency in all of history: at least all of the fiat money that failed in the past ... leaders had to water it down or print money behind the scenes over time.
Not to say that's entirely bad - one could make the claim that 'it's better for China' to have this, there'd be some good points there. But in terms of 'free trade' it's not good.
In any event, the US does not have open trade with China really, so there's constant trade tensions, there probably always will be.
I don't thin anything I'm saying is controversial or new, it just might be new data for the folks here on HN who I find are generally more tech than finance oriented.
There is no direct link between the executive/legislative and the Fed.
The Fed does what's roughly best for American economy, which disproportionately favours those with assets, banks etc. - but they are fairly independent in normal times.
In times of crises, you could start to point to some things like all those homes right now sitting on the Fed balance sheet, surely. But regular operations are not politically controlled.
But in China, the currency is literally worth whatever the government wants it to be at any time. They can literally press a button and 'poof'.
Because of the amazing control and power of the Chinese government, the RMB might be the most tightly politically controlled currency in all of history: at least all of the fiat money that failed in the past ... leaders had to water it down or print money behind the scenes over time.
Not to say that's entirely bad - one could make the claim that 'it's better for China' to have this, there'd be some good points there. But in terms of 'free trade' it's not good.
In any event, the US does not have open trade with China really, so there's constant trade tensions, there probably always will be.
I don't thin anything I'm saying is controversial or new, it just might be new data for the folks here on HN who I find are generally more tech than finance oriented.
Too bad you're being downvoted, despite the chorus of anger over the Trump tariff actions, what we have is not free trade by any stretch of the imagination and it is long over due for some course correction.
What is the point of political discussion on HN ? Isn't HN meant for quality technical discussions ?
Nothing good can come out of these sort of flame wars here.
Well, HN is meant for quality discussions of things we find interesting. Sometimes politics is relevant to us (or at least to enough of us to qualify).
The trick is to keep it a quality discussion, rather than letting it degenerate into a flame war. That's not easy. But if it can't happen here, where can it? (And if the answer is "nowhere", well, I'm not sure that the answer is wrong, but that's one of the most cynical statements possible about the current state of politics.)
The trick is to keep it a quality discussion, rather than letting it degenerate into a flame war. That's not easy. But if it can't happen here, where can it? (And if the answer is "nowhere", well, I'm not sure that the answer is wrong, but that's one of the most cynical statements possible about the current state of politics.)
So don't participate.
Besides: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Besides: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Is Trump’s point that the prices of these goods abroad are artificially low, so he’s going to implement tariffs to correct for that? If so, do counter-tariffs strengthen this argument? This would seem to create an infinite protectionist feedback loop.
There was an episode on planet money about precisely this with sugar tarrifs and how it had unintended consequences on the candy industy which had to move overseas. Very complicated topic.
His stated goal seems to be related to “bringing back American jobs” but it’s really all marketing for himself as usual since while this action will cause more American job loses than it creates, that doesn’t actually matter because it’s just about optics.
Also the authority he invokes is specifically for national security so increasing jobs or any other non national security reason shouldn’t even be a factor. His comments that it’s a negotiating tactic also prove there’s no actual national security rationale.
“...the Trump administration promised its voters more big action on trade. Further WTO challenges could take years, so to make policy more quickly, Trump invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the US the ability to impose trade restrictions in the name of national security.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-ta...
Also the authority he invokes is specifically for national security so increasing jobs or any other non national security reason shouldn’t even be a factor. His comments that it’s a negotiating tactic also prove there’s no actual national security rationale.
“...the Trump administration promised its voters more big action on trade. Further WTO challenges could take years, so to make policy more quickly, Trump invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the US the ability to impose trade restrictions in the name of national security.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1221853/donald-trumps-ta...
There is a general consensus that the world produces too much steel, with a large part of that being Chinese overproduction. I don't have the actual statistics in front of me, but the amount of new steel production that were brought online in China in the past 5 years is on the order of the entire world surplus of steel production.
Which is why it's so confusing that Trump didn't just slap anti-dumping duties on China, which quite frankly everyone agrees with. The best guess is that Trump thought that he could use the steel tariffs as an easy way to wring concessions out of trade partners... and declaring the tariffs a matter of national security is the one way he can do that without having to get Congress's approval (as even many Republicans in Congress are horrified by this).
Which is why it's so confusing that Trump didn't just slap anti-dumping duties on China, which quite frankly everyone agrees with. The best guess is that Trump thought that he could use the steel tariffs as an easy way to wring concessions out of trade partners... and declaring the tariffs a matter of national security is the one way he can do that without having to get Congress's approval (as even many Republicans in Congress are horrified by this).
All Canada has to do is to engage the services of world's #1 consulting firm Essential Consultants LLC and voila, suddenly Trump will be making Canada great again
[deleted]
how do market liberalists reconcile this with their everlasting love of trump?
Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US.
It will be work to get back what we can of what we've lost.
It will be work to get back what we can of what we've lost.
I believe it, but would like a source to see the criteria and who is rating.
https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicalscience/files/2018/02/Gr...
"The 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey was conducted online via Qualtrics from December 22, 2017 to January 16, 2018. Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics. 320 respondents were invited to participate, and 170 usable responses were received, yielding a 53.1% response rate"
It's impossible to prove anything. But these people are scholars in the field, it's non-partisan, the survey methodology is transparent, the results are fairly consistent across partisan self-identification, and they are fairly consistent over time (2014 poll of same org, 2010 Siena College survey, et al). It's significant.
"The 2018 Presidents & Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey was conducted online via Qualtrics from December 22, 2017 to January 16, 2018. Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics. 320 respondents were invited to participate, and 170 usable responses were received, yielding a 53.1% response rate"
It's impossible to prove anything. But these people are scholars in the field, it's non-partisan, the survey methodology is transparent, the results are fairly consistent across partisan self-identification, and they are fairly consistent over time (2014 poll of same org, 2010 Siena College survey, et al). It's significant.
That implies an equal number of each party or general affiliation - it wasn't. 9 of the 166 respondents considered themselves conservative.
Trump is not a good president, don't get me wrong, but that's just not good science.
Trump is not a good president, don't get me wrong, but that's just not good science.
It's not science, it's a survey. And you know that about the respondents because they were transparent about their data.
And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.
And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.
Surveys are very much a scientific tool. This one surveyed social scientists, who use surveys (like this one) regularly as part of conducting social science.
Yes, they were transparent. You, on the other hand, implied equal numbers.
Nobody likes Trump. There's no need to inflate how bad he is - it's very apparent.
Yes, they were transparent. You, on the other hand, implied equal numbers.
Nobody likes Trump. There's no need to inflate how bad he is - it's very apparent.
It bothered me the first time you posted this and didn't say anything then, but I didn't imply equal numbers of respondents and I don't know why you think I did. Unless you have some kind of deeper knowledge about partisan alignment in the population, for all we know this is representative. The rankings are very consistent regardless of party identification in the responses across the board, party identification of respondent seems to be a weak factor in the rankings.
I do actually have deeper knowledge about partisan alignment in the greater population. Even if I didn't, the conservatives did not rank Trump worst. They ranked Buchanan worst, Trump was #40.
When you say this: "Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US."
That usually means that presidential historians of all parties ranked him worst, or at least that a poll controlling for party/political leaning as a variable concluded that he was worst. Neither was the case here.
When you say this: "Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US."
That usually means that presidential historians of all parties ranked him worst, or at least that a poll controlling for party/political leaning as a variable concluded that he was worst. Neither was the case here.
Another option is not play tit-for-tat and instead appeal to the American people by refusing to impose tariffs in return.
Make it about Trump, not America.
There's a chance Trump will lose all his power within a few months anyway if the republicans do very badly in the midterm elections.
Make it about Trump, not America.
There's a chance Trump will lose all his power within a few months anyway if the republicans do very badly in the midterm elections.
They also have to play to domestic audience - where it likely won't fly. Lying passive in response to what many perceive as bullying, won't get any politician far.
[deleted]
That would sort of prove Trump's point though. "See, they knew their trade practices were unfair - they're not even fighting back".
Trumps blather means nothing - the idea is to speak to the American people, not Trump.
The Americans who support him will argue that Trump is winning, that his way of doing business is a winning proposition.
How can our allies, that Trump is hurting for political gain, abide by that?
How can our allies, that Trump is hurting for political gain, abide by that?