Unions praise Trump on steel tariffs

And that is the very sad fact!

 

Let me put it to you this way, someone who says "We have been getting our asses kicked by China and around the world with bad trade deals" is not exactly someone who demonstrates that they know what they are talking about. You can call it baiting or whatever, the overall fact of the matter still remains. We are not getting our asses kicked by China with bad trade deals because 1. China is not in better economic position than us, and 2. No such trade deal with China exists

Not knowing these things is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn them.

 

[

Well congratulations you baited me into one last response with your word games and attempt to avoid honest debate. I would have thought due to our on going conversation on china and how it manages it's economy it would have been obvious I meant getting our asses kicked by China AND other countries with bad trade deals. I was drawing a distinction between the two and actually I think it was obvious but you like your games I guess. If I had said we were getting our asses kicked by bad trade deals with China and other countries you would have a point but I didn't so you don't. I would chalk this up to an honest misunderstanding but with your previous record of these games in this thread it is what it is. Will you just go away now please? LOL

 

Sorry you and tRUMP, and a few boot lickers are the only in agreement.
Tariffs have been done in the past, and failed to do what was intended. How's this time different?

What trade deal do we have with China?

EDIT: As one just pointed out, we have no trade deals with China.
So if they're kicking our ass, it's because they're doing something better. In what you RWers usually want to call, a 'free market'.

And didn't tRUMP, just back out a deal with China? Instead of going into it with his thoughts on how to set up the trade deal?

 

Well, there's the answer to my question I asked josephW.
So how can we be getting bad trade deals with a country we have no deals with.

 

An honest debate and you use a country to stake your claims that we have no deal with. That's the definition of dishonesty.

 

By all means, list those bad trade deals.
And then list what is bad about them.
If you're being honest in this discussion.

 

NAFTA was a good thing. Our unemployment rate has been steadily falling since it was signed.
Free trade is almost always better than any alternative.

 

Bullshit. I reject your ill-thought out premise.

 

I'm not quite sure what this term "globalist" means; to some it seems to mean a system of international, competitive free-trade with low or no tariffs - a system despised by casualties of the rust belt phenomena all around the first world; in the US these same casualties helped to get Trump elected, and in the EU, RW parties are gaining ascendency for the same reason (plus the current refugee crisis)..

{To others, no doubt including yourself, "globalism' implies some transfer of sovereignty to an international body such as the UN, which by the way is required if the UN is ever to be able to intervene to maintain international peace]

You say free-trade is fine, it's just a matter of each nation getting a good deal, but others in this thread are pointing out some of the contradictions in that position; for my part, I say it's impossible for all nations to benefit from free trade without some international oversight mechanism as proposed by Keynes at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.

Economists say that competitive free-trade without tariffs engenders maximum economic growth globally, but I'm guessing both you and I disagree with that economic orthodoxy. (I note one such orthodox economic adviser has resigned from Trump's team today because of his objection to Trump's proposed tariffs).

However, my solution - along the lines of Keynes' Bretton Woods proposals - does not involve tariffs, though it obviously conflicts with your "anti-globalist" stance.

You answered my question: in your view all nations have to put their own interests first.

Sounds OK, but in practice we will still end up with winners and losers, which I regard as an unnecessary and unacceptable outcome in this age of virtually unlimited global manufacturing capacity.

 

We have 14 trade deals with 20 different countries but the big one in the spotlight is of course NAFTA. There are arguments for and against it and both sides have valid points but many of us believe it has done more harm than good and want it renegotiated. Trump ran on this among other things and his voters want him to persue fixing NAFTA and those of you on the left are just going to have to live with that for the time being.Elections have consequences" This subject deserves s thread of it's own and I don't want to go too far off the tracks here but in the context of tariffs and NAFTA I would say that if Trump's using a threat of reimposing tarrifs to get other countries to the bargaining table I think it's a good move.

 

Sorry but in the real world there are winners and losers and for a while now America has been in the losing side if many of our trade deals. Time to fix that while we still can

 

China is a member of the WTO and talks free trade but does not practice it. The US is the least protectionist of all our trading partners.

 

NAFTA, Reagan started it, bush I wanted it implemented before he left office, and Gringrich and R's got Clinton to sign it.
Yes, it was bad, it was the main issue in the '92 elections. It's why Ross Perot ran and why I voted Perot. He was against NAFTA, 25 yrs ago. The damage from NAFTA has been done and we are recovering.
I am quite sure any trade deal comes up for renewal. That is when one goes and makes the deal better, not shoot one's self in the foot and break an agreement.
And now the talk is, Canada and Mexico will not be in the tariff's on steel and aluminum. So your NAFTA concern is not a reason for the tariffs.

IMO, the whole NAFTA deal was for large corps to increase their profits. And the RW party back then was for it. The only party for it. The only party pushing for it. They are still the party of large corporations, and not the working man.

I bet you were with Reagan, Bush I, and Gingrich in the 80's and 90's pushing for this deal. If you voted R, you were for NAFTA.
Were R's not smart enough to know the ramifications of sending our jobs out of country? Or did they simply not care?
I go with, they didn't care. They knew, for there were many re-education and training programs attached to NAFTA.
I even was a participant in one of those programs.

 

You left one important fact out in your usual tirade against Republicans.

"Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs."

 

In other words you are saying poverty (eg, of the type that overtook Detroit, and which exists all around the world), is a natural and unavoidable consequence of global commerce..

A bleak vision of reality, sustained by your philosophy of self-interest above all else.

 

I care less what he said, he lied. Smart people knew that. Hence why smart people voted for Perot. But there weren't enough smart people.
I rant against the R's because the R's are the sole owners of NAFTA, outside of Clinton selling us out.

I notice you don't say anything how your beloved party sold us out. And now you rant against it. Sounds hypocritical.

 

Not true at all actually

1. China has signed free trade agreements with 13 different countries since joining the WTO
2. Australia, Canada, and Singapore are all free trade partners with the US, and they all outrank the US on the free market index, as well as in trade freedom. There are.That's just including the countries we have FRA with, every country with a higher GDP per capita than the US ranks higher in trade freedom

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

 

Signed agreements but has import tariffs greater than the US.

 

Sure, China has tariffs higher than the US, but they have also cut their tariffs by more than 80% since joining the world trade organization. They haven't improved their economy by raising tariffs, they've improved it by lowering tariffs, and as they continue to lower their tariffs, their economy will continue to improve. There are no examples of any nation that has made great economic strides the past decade by raising tariffs.

By the way, China is not one of those countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US. Their GDP per capita is about 1/5h of the US's

 

I love these morons who pretend that the median Red Chinese is far better off than the Median American. These folks just love Commies. The nice thing about Nazism is that when you point out how bad it sucks, no claims "but it has never really been tried yet!"

Gary Cohn has decided to take hike. He was pretty much always at odds with PDT over economic policy and the latest talk of steel and aluminum tariffs was probably the last straw. Frankly, Cohn is another Goldman Sachs alumnus who likes the big government-Wall Street crony connection. Not sad to see him leave. I'm fed up with these open borders and the US has to get screwed on trade, folks.

 

Trump has argued that large U.S. deficits are a sign the country is being taken advantage of by its trade partners, and that restrictions on imports into the U.S. -- through quotas and tariffs -- are necessary to reduce the shortfall and return jobs to America.

While such a solution appears to be clean and simple, there is an inherent problem with this approach. Forty-three percent of the revenues of S&P 500 corporations come from abroad, and any retaliation by foreign countries restricting imports of U.S. products would hurt American jobs as well as the companies’ share prices.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-06/nafta-renewal-would-benefit-investors

Tariffs haven't worked in the past.

 

Yeah, but, if the GOP wins the mid-terms, it won't be because of smart policies like this that benefit the working and middleclass, it will be because of Russian meddling!

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/midterm-elections-russian-meddling-democrat-blue-wave/

 

NAFTA was not only promoted and signed into law by a Democrat president, it also got Democrat votes in Congress. NAFTA unlike Obamacare was not pushed through unilaterally, there's plenty of blame to go around.

 

In the real world there are winners and losers. Sorry if this harsh reality offends you but that's just the way it is.