Trump announces Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum imports

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,968
16,333
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#42
A good friend of mine at wsgr told me today this is weak compared with what bho did but nobody really blinked when bho did it, icywa, some steel from China was penalized over 250% under bho. He also said this isn’t about steel it’s about the real fight to come over ip rights, which China has done nothing to teign in and is a real threat. We then joked about the euro reaction given the outrageous penalties us products incur and he said that the euros are pretty worried about how Trumps actions will impact them so they are cuddling up to the Chinese who see them as useful idiots. I don’t seem to recall any apocalyptic posts on this this board nor do I recall the media in such a panic, wwiii is right on the horizon, hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, funny 10 x’s the level and no reaction, not just funny but entirely predictable.
 
Last edited:

John C

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
974
1,743
643
63
#44
What an odd response to my question, which was, "Since when did Republicans want to copy after the doings of the liberal state of New York?"
Hardly. You left out the part where you said “It’s the Libertarians, (SIC) who believe in the free market.” Very few people on this board champion government interference in the market place more than you.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
15,229
29,462
743
On the highway to heck
#45
I think the tariffs are a sound move. America's industrial base has been declining to the point of near non-existence for 50 years. We have been victimized by China's world wide steel dumps. Our military rediness and ability to sustain itself can't be held hostage to foreign countries. @kspoke has it right, this is a total rebuke to China and may be one of Trump's and America's biggest wins. I would love to see the rust belt back in operation.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,325
47,176
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#47
I think the tariffs are a sound move. America's industrial base has been declining to the point of near non-existence for 50 years. We have been victimized by China's world wide steel dumps. Our military rediness and ability to sustain itself can't be held hostage to foreign countries. @kspoke has it right, this is a total rebuke to China and may be one of Trump's and America's biggest wins. I would love to see the rust belt back in operation.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,968
16,333
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#49
Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression said hello.
I’m not good with names or maybe I just never paid close enough attention but I had an econ prof who was simply extraordinary and I recall vividly 2 things he taught us.
1. Academicians are always right because their teachings are almost always based on equilibrium unfortunately in almost no case is everything equal and therefore even though they’re right if they don’t teach you that very simple premise and how that actually impacts what they teach, they’ve not done their job. Even back then by his estimation 80% weren’t doing their job.
2. Given that number 1 is without question and all things are never equal, he said, paraphrasing, a nation without any protectionist policies may not have a nation to protect.
We have 2 things that China needs, trade and tech, that’s it, we can’t use tech as a chip because we aren’t going to provide those secrets anyway, that leaves trade. The friend I spoke of earlier is an international trade attorney at the maybe the most respected SV law firm, he has similar leanings to me, ip is a huge issue with the Chinese and that’s the real target.
I don’t like nor generally agree with tariffs but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a place at the table under the right circumstances. The Smoot Hawley, while without question the wrong thing to do and more importantly done for the wrong reasons, reference is not relevant and I know you know that, I’ve read most of your financial related posts.
 
Last edited:
Mar 9, 2004
772
275
1,613
Edmond, OK
#50
A good friend of mine at wsgr told me today this is weak compared with what bho did but nobody really blinked when bho did it, icywa, some steel from China was penalized over 250% under bho. He also said this isn’t about steel it’s about the real fight to come over ip rights, which China has done nothing to teign in and is a real threat. We then joked about the euro reaction given the outrageous penalties us products incur and he said that the euros are pretty worried about how Trumps actions will impact them so they are cuddling up to the Chinese who see them as useful idiots. I don’t seem to recall any apocalyptic posts on this this board nor do I recall the media in such a panic, wwiii is right on the horizon, hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs, funny 10 x’s the level and no reaction, not just funny but entirely predictable.
If we need to punish China, then punish China. Why punish everyone?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
64,325
47,176
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#52

Reminds me of:
"You're going to have such great healthcare at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it is going to be so easy."
-- Donald J. Trump, Oct. 2016

So, how easy was repealing and replacing Obamacare?
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,968
16,333
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#53
If we need to punish China, then punish China. Why punish everyone?
I don't think this is to punish China, I think it is to create a foundation for negotiations on ip. Trump is not a pol, he is a businessman and (whether folks like to admit it or not) he is a successful one. As I mentioned earlier we have 2 positions of strength with China, 1 tech 2 trade, we are not going to use tech as a negotiating chip and even if we tried China knows it would be a phony chip, that leaves trade. Why would we only place tariffs on China, if we put pressure on other countries they can and will help with China, similar to the situation in NK, the Chinese are helping with NK and that was due in large part to pressures the US put on areas of interest to the Chinese. So far the Chinese have said virtually nothing (I am sure you will find comments from lower level diplomats if you use a SE to look them up but nothing from the ones that matter). Watch how he operates he operates as a businessman who is negotiating a deal not as a pol, that's who he is, good or bad.
The other part of this that I mentioned earlier is that this also plays to his campaign promise on jobs, so 2 birds one stone.
This will have negligible impact on the US consumer, ip however could have devastating impact on the US consumer and companies.
Finally and again, if all else were equal then there would be no need for any type of punitive (negotiating tactic or not) effort but everything is not equal. There are industries that do in fact require protection unless the US in convinced it will never again be at war with a global power (a wonderful thought but an impractical and dangerous way of doing business).
 

John C

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
974
1,743
643
63
#54
I’m not good with names or maybe I just never paid close enough attention but I had an econ prof who was simply extraordinary and I recall vividly 2 things he taught us.
1. Academicians are always right because their teachings are almost always based on equilibrium unfortunately in almost no case is everything equal and therefore even though they’re right if they don’t teach you that very simple premise and how that actually impacts what they teach, they’ve not done their job. Even back then by his estimation 80% weren’t doing their job.
2. Given that number 1 is without question and all things are never equal, he said, paraphrasing, a nation without any protectionist policies may not have a nation to protect.
We have 2 things that China needs, trade and tech, that’s it, we can’t use tech as a chip because we aren’t going to provide those secrets anyway, that leaves trade. The friend I spoke of earlier is an international trade attorney at the maybe the most respected SV law firm, he has similar leanings to me, ip is a huge issue with the Chinese and that’s the real target.
I don’t like nor generally agree with tariffs but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a place at the table under the right circumstances. The Smoot Hawley, while without question the wrong thing to do and more importantly done for the wrong reasons, reference is not relevant and I know you know that, I’ve read most of your financial related posts.
When I read the first paragraph, I thought you must have been my student when I was teaching there. :)

I realize China is a kleptocracy (a new word) and the world has to do something about what is going on. Some sort of protection of property rights is necessary. I worry, however, that when we start down this path, we start catching people in our wake besides China. How long until someone retaliates against American companies who are exporting products to their country? The things we export are the things we are best at producing. David Ricardo began explaining that back in the 1830s (comparative advantage). We don't operate in a vacuum and, unfortunately, too many people still think we are in that 1945 to 1960 period when we were the only industrialized country who came out of the war with our production facilities in tact and we could basically do whatever we wanted without any major impacts on our industrial base.

The Law of Unintended Consequences hasn't been repealed. Somehow, somewhere, and the MSN won't even know to report it when it happens, this is going to bite us on our backside. It could be something as simple as some country deciding they are going to put policies in place that result in domestic vehicles being equipped with Nexen tires instead of Goodyear, with the result that US Goodyear plants have to cut hours for their workers.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
11,968
16,333
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#57
When I read the first paragraph, I thought you must have been my student when I was teaching there. :)

I realize China is a kleptocracy (a new word) and the world has to do something about what is going on. Some sort of protection of property rights is necessary. I worry, however, that when we start down this path, we start catching people in our wake besides China. How long until someone retaliates against American companies who are exporting products to their country? The things we export are the things we are best at producing. David Ricardo began explaining that back in the 1830s (comparative advantage). We don't operate in a vacuum and, unfortunately, too many people still think we are in that 1945 to 1960 period when we were the only industrialized country who came out of the war with our production facilities in tact and we could basically do whatever we wanted without any major impacts on our industrial base.

The Law of Unintended Consequences hasn't been repealed. Somehow, somewhere, and the MSN won't even know to report it when it happens, this is going to bite us on our backside. It could be something as simple as some country deciding they are going to put policies in place that result in domestic vehicles being equipped with Nexen tires instead of Goodyear, with the result that US Goodyear plants have to cut hours for their workers.
Well said,

Could be, he also had his favorite saying - if you teach economics in a vacuum, it's not worth the vacuum you're teaching it in.

Two things and then I think we've run our course (not trying to evade and not saying I won't participate in the conversation I am always happy to have a discussion) simply because the conversation has already begun shifting (not from you) from policy to anti-Trump and it will just be a discussion that doesn't interest me, I engaged in this because I'm always fascinated by the business end of this, international trade is something I'm somewhat familiar with.

Our world has shifted, that again was a warning I heard repeated often in school and then have heard again and again in the business world for the past 30+years, that it would continue to shift and the US would have to adapt or at some point even being the largest trading partner opportunity for any country would not be enough. We are poor adapters as a government but thankfully we are excellent adapters as businesses, that is where the rubber meets the road, imo. Not to go get political because I am doing my best to keep this about policy but Trump is not a pol everyone (incl many in his own party) keeps reacting as if he is somehow going to become one, he's not and that's a good thing, we have over 530 pol's in DC already and they get nothing done or when they do it is seldom of much benefit. He thinks and acts as a businessman (sometimes I agree sometimes I don't but at least I pretty much always understand the why), all of the twitter nonsense by him and others is simply noise, I don't pay much attention to it either here or anywhere else because it's of zero importance. Trump is a master of getting your attention to the left (not speaking politically) when he's doing something on the right, twitter is his left and all those who cannot get over their hatred for anything Trump continue to fall for it and that's what he wants. btw that's not an opinion that's pretty much what he has published.

We are in the midst of a shift now, China is becoming increasingly powerful although not as economically powerful as many would be led to believe, Russia is on the rebound again, they tanked and have a huge amount of ground to make up before they are a real economic threat, and were it not for brexit and all the fallout from that throughout europe, they might be a formidable trading adversary (frankly they aren't at this point). As I stated multiple times now, generally speaking I am not in favor of any punitive economic measures because they tend to punish those who are the most vulnerable and they tend to not produce positive results, the H-S references I've seen here a few times are entirely out of context with the conditions of today, the conditions that existed then simply don't today and to provide that as a red flag is misleading.

Where we are at now is not entirely about creating positive results as it is preservation of that which provides us the very liberties that we enjoy, no agriculture because farms cannot survive, no standing on the world market, defense weak because we no longer are capable of generating the materials required and the row decides they don't want to provide it or they do at a massive premium, then we weaken our defense structure and make no mistake, imo, China and Russia would like nothing better than to weaken us beyond what bho and the last several pouts before him did and I'm not talking about defense spending because that's a straw man, do we spend too much, I think so but who am I to say do we spend correctly, no and that I do feel certain I can say.
I'm a Constitutionalist 1st and a Libertarian 2nd and if there is ever a conflict I will always tend to the Constitution (original intent that is).
 
Last edited:

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
24,547
30,908
1,743
oklahoma city
#59
So you have admitted you are not a Libertarian since you want the government of the Great State of Oklahoma to fix wages. Does that make you a Republican, or a Socialist (Democrat)? Pick one.
The biggest problem with libertarianism is that everyone gets held to an ideal that can't exist in reality.
I like the idea of libertarianism. I don't for one minute think that the ideal libertarian answer is the best answer for every single issue. Therefore, according to many, I am not a libertarian. Which is no sweat for me cause I don't hold to any label very well. But, that sort of kills a movement.