by never a jw 47 Replies latest social current
"Why is it OK for the EU to impose tariffs, but not OK for the US?"
Because we in the U.S. believe in free trade far more than the E.U. If they want to go off a cliff, then let them go. Free trade allows the consumer to buy the best mousetrap at the best price possible. Free trade benefits consumers more than anyone else. What's wrong with that??
DT is a lousy, failed hotelier who thinks he knows more than he does...about everything. He doesn't bother learning about economics or repercussions of actions he wants to take. It didn't matter in the past, because he would just sue people. Ai yi yi...this guy.
Protectionism never works.
Except it worked for much of American history, and the history of other countries, too. We used to fund the government with tariffs instead of income taxes and the country boomed for many decades.
DT is a lousy, failed hotelier
LOL.
Only in America can a guy file for bankruptcy for his casino (a casino! mind you) and be considered a "successful businessman".
The Trump administration last week celebrated the workers and businesses that make this country great. The purpose of “Made in America Week” was to recognize that, when given a fair chance to compete, Americans can make and sell some of the best, most innovative products in the world.
Unfortunately, many governments across the globe have pursued policies that put American workers and businesses at a disadvantage. For these governments, President Trump and his administration have a clear message: It is time to rebalance your trade policies so that they are fair, free and reciprocal.
Many nations express commitment to free markets while criticizing the U.S. for what they characterize as a protectionist stance. Yet these very nations engage in unfair trading practices, erect barriers to American exports, and maintain significant trade surpluses with us. They argue that our $752.5 billion trade deficit in goods last year was simply a natural and inevitable consequence of free trade. So, they contend, America should have no complaints.
Our major trading partners issue frequent statements regarding their own free-trade bona fides, but do they practice what they preach? Or are they protectionists dressed in free-market clothing?
When it comes to trade in goods, our deficits with China and the EU are $347 billion and $146.8 billion, respectively. As the nearby chart shows, China’s tariffs are higher than those of the U.S. in 20 of the 22 major categories of goods. Europe imposes higher tariffs than the U.S. in 17 of 22 categories, though the chart does show that the EU and China are much different regarding tariff rates.
The EU charges a 10% tariff on imported American cars, while the U.S. imposes only a 2.5% tariff on imported European cars. Today Europe exports 1.14 million automobiles to the U.S., nearly four times as many as the U.S. exports to Europe. China, which is the world’s largest automobile market, has a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and imposes even higher tariffs on luxury vehicles.
In addition to tariffs, both China and Europe enforce formidable nontariff trade barriers against imports. Examples include onerous and opaque procedures for registering and gaining certification for imports; unscientific sanitary rules, especially with regard to agricultural goods; requirements that companies build local factories; and forced technology transfers. The list goes on.
Both China and Europe also bankroll their exports through grants, low-cost loans, energy subsidies, special value-added tax refunds, and below-market real-estate sales and leases, among other means. Comparable levels of government support do not exist in the U.S. If these countries really are free traders, why do they have such formidable tariff and nontariff barriers?
Until we make better deals with our trading partners, we will never know precisely how much of our deficit in goods is due to such trickery. But there can be no question that these barriers are responsible for a significant portion of our current trade imbalance.
China is not a market economy. The Chinese government creates national champions and takes other actions that significantly distort markets. Responding to such actions with trade remedies is not protectionist. In fact, the World Trade Organization specifically permits its members to take action when other countries are subsidizing, dumping and engaging in other unfair trade practices.
Consistent with WTO rules, the U.S. has since Jan. 20 brought 54 trade-remedy actions – antidumping and countervailing duty investigations – compared with 40 brought during the same period last year. The U.S. currently has 403 outstanding orders against 42 countries.
But unfortunately, in its annual reports, the WTO consistently casts the increase of trade enforcement cases as evidence of protectionism by the countries lodging the complaints. Apparently, the possibility never occurs to the WTO that there are more trade cases because there are more trade abuses.
The WTO should protect free and fair trade among nations, not attack those trade remedies necessary to ensure a level playing field. Defending U.S. workers and businesses against this onslaught should not be mislabeled as protectionism. Insisting on fair trade is the best way to ensure the long-term strength of the international trading system.
The Trump administration believes in free and fair trade and will use every available tool to counter the protectionism of those who pledge allegiance to free trade while violating its core principles. The U.S. is working to restore a level playing field, and under President Trump’s leadership, we will do so.
This is a true free-trade agenda.
https://www.commerce.gov/news/opinion-editorials/2017/08/free-trade-two-way-street
The standard of living has gone consistently up for everyone, everywhere. The rich has acquired wealth at a faster pace than the rest of us, but the standard of living of just about everyone has gone up.
http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
During the Davos World Economic Forum, Ross conveyed to the larger multinational interests an explanation of the high-level shift in U.S. trade policy, and reinforced the Trump Doctrine of economic nationalism.
Secretary Ross told the panel: “The Chinese for quite a little while have been superb at free-trade rhetoric and even more superb at highly protectionist behavior. Every time the U.S. does anything to deal with a problem, we are called protectionist.”
“Protectionists” the opposition was predicted to shout by Ross in January. Well, cue the audio visual demonstrations over the past few days surrounding Steel and Aluminum tariffs.
Also at Davos in January, after three decades of President Trump outlining his trade views, secretary Ross accurately said President Donald Trump has a forceful leadership style that some people don’t like. “We don’t intend to abrogate leadership, but leadership is different from being a sucker and being a patsy. We would like to be the leader in making the world trade system more fair and more equitable to all participants” Ross said.
Secretary Ross also challenged the panelists, including World Trade Organization Director-General Roberto Azevedo and Cargill Inc. CEO David MacLennan, to name a nation that’s less protectionist than the U.S. – – – He got no responses.
Not taking any guff, Secretary Ross then cited a study of more than 20 products that showed China had higher tariffs on all but two items on the list, and Europe all but four. The panel sat jaw-agape at Ross’s delivery of irrefutable facts to the audience. “Before we get into sticks and stones about free trade we ought to first talk about, is there really free trade or is it a unicorn in the garden,” said Ross. Again, no response from the panel.
Because we in the U.S. believe in free trade far more than the E.U. If they want to go off a cliff, then let them go. Free trade allows the consumer to buy the best mousetrap at the best price possible. Free trade benefits consumers more than anyone else. What's wrong with that??
Gotta be the stupidest comment on this thread...as if there were no negative externalities to the cheap price of imported Chinese shit, like having our industries gutted by protectionist trading partners, along with the attendant wage stagnation and job losses, with resulting broken homes, opioid addicts and meth heads.
The second bill George Washington signed as President was a tariff. On July 4 1789:
