Trump’s trade war hurting US economy

Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#1
1. The adverse impact of Trump's tariffs could be felt in the rising prices of washing machines and the scrapping of solar projects in the US. Similarly, thanks to Trump's disastrous trade war with China, Latin American countries like Brazil are selling abundance of soybeans to China at US expense. As a result, Trump had to hastily call a so-called "truce" in his trade war with the EU, lying to US farmers that he had opened up the European market to US agriculture, and pleading with them: "You’re not going to be too angry with Trump, I can tell you."

The following are excerpts from Justin Worland's June 19, 2018 article, headlined "Why Trump's Trade War With China Is So Risky" at http://time.com/5314894/donald-trump-china-trade-war/

(Begin excerpts)
....For Trump, who has declared trade wars “easy to win,” the escalating tariffs represent the fulfillment of a campaign promise to crack down on China and reduce the U.S. trade deficit to support U.S. jobs. But most economists, business leaders and trade experts on both sides of the aisle have cried foul, arguing that trade wars are a dangerous game that could hurt the economy at home and around the world.

The prospect of a trade war is particularly dangerous when it comes to China, the U.S.’ largest goods trading partner. Products from the country are integrated into global supply chains, and the U.S. sends the country billions of dollars worth agricultural products, vehicles and machinery each year.

That position — along with the authoritarian nature of its political system — gives China significant leverage to stay the course in any trade war. The country’s tariffs on $34 billion in goods announced on June 15 targeted industries in politically sensitive places: soybean farmers in Iowa, U.S. automakers in the Rust Belt and orange juice in Florida.

People in those swing states are taking notice. “If we lose trade to China, our neighbors to the south will be glad to take up that trade,” says John Heisdorffer, a soybean producer from Iowa and president of the American Soybean Association.

...most economists generally say that tariffs are the wrong way to tackle the issue. The rollout of this latest set of actions was quick and decisive, leaving little opportunity for negotiation. On June 15, Trump announced tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports. Within minutes China responded in kind, targeting a range of goods from soy beans to electric vehicles, and prompting Trump three days later to order his trade office to find another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to target. Preemptively, Trump said he would be willing to bring the total value of Chinese goods targeted with tariffs to $450 billion....

You may not have felt the pinch of the trade war yet, but experts say that barring big shift in direction large swathes of Americans will get hit. To understand the effects of tariffs, look no further than washing machines and solar panels. The price of laundry equipment has spiked 17% in the last three months after years of decline, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. And more than $2.5 billion in U.S. solar projects have been scrapped thanks to the tariffs, according to a Reuters analysis.

Meanwhile, markets have responded poorly to Trump’s tariffs play, dipping repeatedly with each new tariff announcement. Even an internal report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers reported by the New York Times found that Trump’s trade agenda would hurt the U.S. economy. At the same, Trump’s tax cuts and higher spending have actually exacerbated the trade deficit, which he ostensibly hopes to reduce with his trade agenda. “Look, I have always said a trade deficit doesn’t matter,” former Trump advisor Gary Cohn said at a Washington Post event last week. “In many respects, it’s helpful to our economy.”

But Trump has remained determined to implement his trade agenda in contrast to his vacillations on other political issues. And he is counting on the getting tough on China play to deliver a win for his base and give Republicans a boost in the midterm elections. The question now is whether economic effects will be felt by then as well. (End excerpts)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ltural-trade-deal_us_5b5bd221e4b0de86f4974cd2
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
3,320
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#2
Apparently you've never heard of:



Sometimes short term pain is necessary for long term massive gain - hello?!
 
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#3
2. Winter Nie is the regional director of Southeast Asia and Oceania for IMD Business School. He opined that the result of a US-Sino trade war would be "an economic war of attrition that China is infinitely better positioned to win". The following are excerpts from Winter Nie's December 22, 2016 article headlined Why America Would Lose a Trade War With China | Fortune

(Begin excerpts)
...If Trump were to impose the 35% to 45% tariffs that he talked about in his campaign, the situation could evolve quickly into a total rupture. But there are a number of intermediate stages that might be painful to both the Chinese and to American companies, but would still leave open trade in certain areas that both sides consider critical. What is certain is that a complete rupture would hurt American companies and China as well, though America will likely be the bigger loser.

....Trump is entering uncharted waters. The danger is in thinking that talking tough to China will produce positive results. It won’t. From Beijing’s perspective, international trade takes a second seat to internal politics. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s top priority is to maintain political stability. He cannot lose face in his relations with a new administration in Washington and hope to retain power at home. He especially cannot deal with an American president who the Chinese feel fails to show proper respect for China itself. And, now that China has emerged as the world’s second most powerful economy, he really doesn’t have to.

A trade war would be problematic, but it would not be a disaster for China, mainly because the U.S. needs China more than vice versa. Twenty years ago, the situation might have been different. China was dramatically underdeveloped, and it wanted access to Western technology and manufacturing techniques. China has most of what it needs now, and what it doesn’t have it can easily obtain from vendors outside the U.S. While the American market looked enticing a few decades ago, it is relatively mature, and today the newer emerging market countries have become much more interesting to Beijing.

Although a good deal of American high tech equipment is manufactured in China, the lion’s share of the profits go to the American companies that designed the equipment. If that were to stop, American companies would be hurt more than Chinese manufacturers.

The fastest growing markets for the best items China produces, like laptop computers and cell phones, are in developing regions such as India, Latin America, and Africa. In contrast, China itself is a market that the U.S. can hardly ignore. By the end of 2015, Chinese consumers bought 131 million iPhones. The total sales to U.S. customers during the same period stood at only 110 million. And iPhones are only a small part of U.S. exports. Boeing, which employs 150,000 workers in the U.S., estimates that China will buy some 6,810 airplanes over the next 20 years, and that market alone will be worth more than $1 trillion.

Were Trump to start a trade war, the most immediate effects would probably be felt by companies like Walmart, which import billions of dollars of cheap goods. The prices on almost all of these items would quickly skyrocket beyond the reach of the lower economic brackets—not because of manufacturing costs, but because of the tariffs. The result would be an economic war of attrition that China is infinitely better positioned to win.

China’s foreign currency reserves now stand at more than $3 trillion. In contrast, the U.S. has foreign exchange reserves that hover at around $120 billion. Trump’s tariffs would automatically trigger penalties against the U.S. in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and might even lead to the WTO’s collapse, which would lead to higher tariffs against U.S. exports. While it might take a while for that to happen, the turmoil would be catastrophic for American business and employment. China, on the other hand, would emerge relatively unscathed.

In fact, the importance of the U.S.-China relationship is already being challenged by other players. Apple’s iPhone sales in China are running into competition from local Chinese manufacturers, and Samsung is more than happy to fill any void that the Chinese can’t deal with. Likewise, the Chinese would happily shift their trillion dollars in future aircraft purchases to Airbus a European firm that is already building a plant in China to finish assembly of large, twin-aisle jets. As for automobiles, most Chinese would just as soon drive a Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus as a Ford.

Trump’s abandonment of existing U.S. trade agreements would accelerate China’s displacement of America as the world’s leading economic power. Both China leading economic experts hope that won’t happen quite yet, but almost anything is possible. (End excerpts)
 
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#4
3. Minnesota is the third largest producer of soybeans in the US. The crop accounts for 30 percent of the state's agricultural exports. The state shipped more than $2 billion worth of soybeans abroad in 2016. More than half went to China.

The following are excerpts from the April 5, 2018 article, by Star Tribune staff writers Jim Spencer and Tom Meersman, under the headline Minnesota has millions at stake as China targets soybean exports - StarTribune.com

(Begin excerpts)
WASHINGTON – Minnesota’s 2018 soybean crop lost $152 million in value in the commodities futures market hours after China threatened Wednesday to place a 25 percent tariff on soybeans imported from the United States.

Commodity futures are in constant flux, the state’s soybean farmers know. But they also see a serious threat should actions ever replace words.

“If the futures price drops 40 cents a bushel on talk, what’s it going to do if this really happens?” asked Bill Gordon, who grows 1,000 acres of soybeans a year on his farm near Worthington.

As the U.S. and China move closer to a trade war, no one involved with Minnesota’s leading agricultural export wants to find out.

“Soybeans are the big dog in the room,” University of Minnesota grain market economist Ed Usset explained. “China will import more soybeans this year than our entire country produced four years ago.”

Minnesota is the nation’s third largest producer of soybeans. The crop accounts for 30 percent of the state’s agricultural exports. The state shipped more than $2 billion worth of soybeans abroad in 2016. More than half went to China.

There are other Minnesota-made products on China’s newly announced list of U.S. products that face 25 percent tariffs in retaliation for President Donald Trump’s plan to place punitive taxes on 1,300 kinds of Chinese imports to America. But none put the state’s economy at more risk than a punitive levy on a little yellow protein-rich bean....

But the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association is so upset that it issued a statement Wednesday “calling on the White House to reconsider the tariffs that led to this retaliation.”

Minnesota-based Cargill urged both countries to “get to the negotiating table to constructively address their concerns with each other in a time-bound manner.”

The impact of trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies could lead to a destructive trade war with serious consequences for economic growth and job creation,” Cargill said.

Four state legislators — Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake; Rep. Rod Hamilton, R-Mountain Lake; Sen. Bill Weber, R-Luverne; and Rep. Paul Anderson, R-Starbuck — who lead the agriculture committees in St. Paul issued a joint statement, warning that “foreign tariffs on products like soybeans and pork could be devastating to farmers already struggling with low commodity prices, and threaten Minnesota families, jobs, exports, and our economy.”....

Bob Worth, a 65-year-old soybean farmer in Lake Benton, lived through a trade battle that became more than a war of words when President Jimmy Carter took on the Russians in the late 1970s. “That hurt us significantly,” Worth said. “We lost exports and the value of commodities fell.”

It took years for Worth’s farm to recover....

If the threats turn into actual tariffs, Naeve* said “crazy things” will begin to happen.

“The beans will end up going somewhere,” Naeve added, “but the more we have to shuffle around and swap and do more logistics and transloading and shipping, every one of those things just bites into the price and nibbles away 5 and 10 and 20 and 50 cents a bushel here and there.”

For people such as Mike Petefish, dragging agricultural commodities — especially soybeans — into a trade war makes no sense. The 33-year-old president of the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association farms 5,000 acres of soybeans and corn with his father and his wife.

Ag is one of the few areas where we have a trade surplus,” Petefish said. “Exporting more soybeans would seem to be an answer.”

Instead, the president’s trade policy has put at risk the very voters who delivered him to the White House.

Trump,” said Petefish, “has to know that most of his base lies in rural America.” (End excerpts)

* Seth Naeve is a University of Minnesota Extension soybean agronomist.
 
Nov 2017
3,320
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#5
The president’s critics accuse him of recklessly starting a trade war that will be bad for America and the global economy. They couldn’t be more wrong – and here’s why.

President Trump imposed 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports and 25 percent tariffs on steel imports in June and has threatened to impose tariffs on autos and other products. In retaliation, Canada imposed $12.6 billion in tariffs on a broad range of U.S. products Sunday, joining other nations – including China, Mexico, and European countries – that have slapped retaliatory tariffs on goods imported from the U.S.

It’s understandable that our foreign trading partners are upset by President Trump’s trade actions – they had good deals going before he took office, with many racking up many billions of dollars in trade surpluses with the U.S. each year.

The better and fairer trade deals the president wants to negotiate are designed to level the playing field on trade. This will benefit the U.S. because the current playing field is distinctly tilted in favor of our trading partners.

President Trump’s actions on trade shouldn’t surprise anyone who followed his 2016 presidential campaign. Again and again as he crisscrossed the U.S., the author of “The Art of the Deal” told crowds and the media that negotiating better trade deals was a key part of his Make America Great Again agenda.

While all Americans have benefitted from imported low-priced products, the costs in lost jobs and reduced incomes have primarily fallen on America’s working class. They noticed. They heard candidate Trump’s trade message and elected a president who promised to use his negotiating skills to improve the trade dynamic.

Discussing presidential candidate Trump’s pledge to negotiate better trade deals during the presidential campaign, President Obama asked: “How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”

Changing times require changing policies. Just because America’s trade practices made sense decades ago does not mean these same trade practices make sense in the 21st century.

President Trump has since explained what “magic wand” he will use. But it’s not magic at all. It’s smart negotiating. In simplified terms, here’s how it works:

With a trade deficit over $500 billion running in their favor, we need to create incentives for our trading partners to renegotiate our current relationships. That’s because nations – like people – rarely give up economic benefits they’ve grown used to having simply because doing so would be fair. They operate in their self-interest.

However, given this current trade imbalance, our trading partners have more to lose from reduced trade than we do. Using the potential of fairer and more balanced – but still lucrative – trade relationships as the carrot and economically punitive tariffs as the stick isn’t a magic wand. However, it could be a very effective approach in the hands of a skilled negotiator willing to do what it takes to convince our trading partners that we are serious – but open to negotiation.

When considering trade policy, it is important to recognize the difference between using tariffs to tilt the international playing field in favor of American businesses and using them as a negotiating tool.

The U.S. objective in such negotiations would be to level a playing field tilted against American businesses, prevent a flood of foreign products designed to destroy American industrial sectors from pouring into our country, and protect our crown jewels of technology.

Like President Trump, I am a strong believer that more trade is better than less trade – assuming balanced and reciprocal trade relationships. But, with all due respect for the benefits of free trade, it isn’t truly free if it isn’t truly fair.

Times have changed, and the playing field needs to change with them. Looking back at history can help us understand the situation America faces now on trade.

Following the horrible devastation of World War II, the United States was the only economic power on Earth with undamaged industrial and agricultural sectors. To rebuild the world economy, the U.S. worked to reduce trade barriers and spread free-market capitalism.

At the same time, our trading partners imposed high trade barriers on certain products, while we allowed their goods to flow more freely into the U.S.

While socialist governments in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China restrained worldwide economic growth during the Cold War, the capitalist economies in Western Europe and Japan rapidly thrived. But following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 and China’s transition from pure socialism to a limited form of free market capitalism in the 1990s, the world economy soared.

Since 1995, the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have published an annual Index of Economic Freedom. According to the 2018 edition, with rising economic freedom, including trade freedom, “by a great many measures, the past two decades have been the most prosperous in the history of human kind.” Over this period, “world GDP (gross domestic product) has nearly doubled” cutting “the global poverty rate by two-thirds.”

This unprecedented growth dramatically improved the economic condition of America’s trading partners. According to the World Bank, as a region, North America now accounts for about 27 percent of the world’s overall GDP of $87.5 trillion. The U.S., as the world’s largest economy, is responsible for just over 23 percent. However, Asia accounts for 36 percent, with China at about 16 percent and Japan at about 6 percent. Europe accounts for 26 percent.

The economic fortunes of our trading partners have clearly recovered. Our trade policy needs to recognize this indisputable fact.

In fact, looking forward, a study by the private services firm PwC projects that by 2050, China will be world’s largest economy, India will be second and the United States will drop to third, with fourth place going to Indonesia. This would be a dramatic drop from our traditional position as the world richest economy.

Changing times require changing policies. Just because America’s trade practices made sense decades ago does not mean these same trade practices make sense in the 21st century.

We have moved beyond the post-World War II and Cold War period when America’s economic dominance was unchallenged and trade concessions were essential to worldwide economic growth. While our trading partners’ economies have meaningfully improved, America’s approach to trade failed to adjust, leading to increasingly large trade deficits.

For example, the U.S. imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on car imports. But American car manufacturers must pay a 10 percent tariff to sell their cars in Europe – four times higher than Europeans must pay to sell their cars in the U.S. This helps explain why German manufacturers sell three cars in America for every car we sell in Germany. It also helps explain why our trade in goods deficit with Germany was $64 billion in 2017.

Japan’s protectionist trade barriers are so restrictive that in 1989 the Reagan administration labeled Japan an unfair trading partner. Today those protectionist policies largely remain in place. As a result, Japanese car manufacturers sell 100 cars in the U.S. for every car we sell in Japan. Our trade deficit in goods with Japan stood at $49 billion in 1989. It jumped to $69 billion in 2017.

While China is not as yet a major auto exporting nation, since 2008 it has manufactured more cars annually than any other nation. It primarily sells those cars inexpensively within China, while imposing a 25 percent tariff on American cars imported into the country.

Although it has been a member of the World Trade Organization since 2001, China nonetheless continues to engage in predatory trade practices and intellectual property theft. In 2001, our trade in goods deficit with China was $83 billion. In 2017, it was a staggering $376 billion.

While the U.S. has its own protectionist tariffs (for example, a 25 percent tariff on imported trucks), our competitors generally have higher tariff and non-tariff trade barriers than we do. And in some cases, our foreign competitors benefit from much cheaper labor costs and other lower operating costs because of lax regulation and state subsidized industries.

As a result, America’s total annual trade deficit in goods with countries around the world was $810 billion in 2017. Even including services (where we have a trade surplus of over $200 billion), our trade deficit has ballooned to $568 billion. We should at least consider the possibility that it’s time to level the playing field.

President Trump has done what any president should do – he’s made it clear that America will not allow the unfair trade practices that have led to enormous trade deficits to continue.

No one can say for certain what the outcome of President Trump’s tariffs and other trade policies will be. But it’s in America’s interest for the president to do his best to eliminate trade barriers, level the playing field and shrink our trade deficit.

Andy Puzder was chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants for more than 16 years, following a career as an attorney. He was nominated by President Trump to serve as U.S. labor secretary. In 2011, Puzder co-authored "Job Creation: How It Really Works and Why Government Doesn't Understand It." His latest book is "The Capitalist Comeback: The Trump Boom and the Left's Plot to Stop It" (Center Street, April 24, 2018).

Trump's trade critics are wrong -- His tariffs could bring major benefits to America | Fox News

 
Last edited:
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#6
4. The following are excerpts from the July 12, 2018 article headlined "Trump trade war pain: Small U.S. firms hit by import, export tariffs as years of efforts go down the drain" at https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...-tariffs-years-efforts-go-drain/#.W2MLyPZuLIU

(Begin excerpts)
NEW YORK – Time and effort have gone down the drain for Steve Gould, who is scrambling to find new customers for his gin, whiskey and other spirits since the United States has taken a tough stance on trade issues.

Before the European Union retaliated against new U.S. tariffs with taxes of its own, Gould expected revenue from the EU at his Golden Moon Distillery in Colorado to reach $250,000 or $350,000 this year. Now he’s concerned that European exports will total just $25,000. Golden Moon already saw an effect when then-candidate Donald Trump made trade an issue during the 2016 campaign. Gould lost one of his Mexican importers and an investor, as overseas demand for small-distiller spirits was growing.

We’ve lost years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in building relationships with offshore markets,” says Gould, who’s hoping to find new customers in countries like Japan.

President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade policies are taking a toll on small U.S. manufacturers. The president has imposed tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports from most of the world, including Europe, Mexico and Canada, driving up costs for companies that rely on those metals. And he has slapped 25 percent taxes on $34 billion in Chinese imports in a separate trade dispute, targeting mostly machinery and industrial components so far. Trump’s tariffs have drawn retaliation from around the world. China is taxing American soybeans, among other things; the European Union has hit Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon; Canada has imposed tariffs on a range of products — from U.S. steel to dishwasher detergent.

More businesses could be feeling the pain as the trade disputes escalate — the administration on Tuesday threatened to impose 10 percent tariffs on thousands of Chinese products, including fish, apples and burglar alarms. And China responded with a tariff threat of its own, although it didn’t say what U.S. exports would be targeted.

Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to tariffs because they lack the financial resources larger companies have to absorb higher costs. Large companies can move production overseas — as Harley-Davidson recently announced it would do to escape 25 percent retaliatory tariffs in Europe. But “if you’re a small firm, it’s much harder to do that; you don’t have an international network of production locations,” says Lee Branstetter, professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College.

Shifting manufacturing away from items that use components that are being taxed is also harder since small businesses tend to make fewer products, he says. And if tariffs make it too expensive to export to their current markets, small companies may not be able to afford the effort of finding new ones.

Small business owners have been growing more confident over the past year as the economy has been strong, and they’ve been hiring at a steady if not robust pace. But those hurt by tariffs are can lose their optimism and appetite for growth within a few months.

“They have narrow profit margins and it’s a tax,” says Kent Jones, an economics professor at Babson College. “That lowers their profit margins and increases the possibility of layoffs and even bankruptcies.”

Bertram Yachts is one company finding it trickier to maneuver. The U.S. has put a 25 percent tariff on hundreds of boat parts imported from China, where most marine components are made. And European countries have imposed a 25 percent tariff on U.S.-made boats. Last year, Bertram exported about a third of its boats, with half going to Europe.

We have been squeezed on both sides,” says Peter Truslow, CEO of the Tampa, Florida-based boat maker.

Truslow doesn’t know how the tariffs will affect the company’s sales and profits, but dealers he’s spoken to in Europe have already gotten cancellations on boats that run into the millions of dollars. Bertram plans to try to build up its strong U.S. business and seek more customers in countries that aren’t involved in trade disputes with the U.S. including Japan and Australia.

Still, the company’s growth and job creation stand to slow. “It’s probably going to be more about a reduction in hiring than it is about layoffs,” Truslow says.

The ripples are being felt across the industry, says Tom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association trade group. He estimates there are about 1,000 manufacturers, almost all small or mid-size businesses, and says some parts can only be bought from China.

Matt Barton’s metal fabrication company, which makes custom replacement parts for farm equipment, outdoor signs and people who race hot rods, is paying its suppliers up to 20 percent more for metals than it did a year ago.

Prices had actually soared as much as 40 percent months ago amid expectations of U.S. tariffs on aluminum and steel. They have since steadied, but are expected to remain high for three to six months. Barton’s Pittsboro, Indiana-based company, The Hero Lab, is absorbing part of the increases. Some racing customers are still delaying orders.

What they budgeted to cost $1,000 now is now $1,200 or $1,500,” Barton says. “They’re pushing their orders back four to six weeks, waiting for a few more paychecks to come in.”

Jeff Schwager’s cheese company, Sartori, is selling products to Mexico at break-even prices because of that nation’s retaliatory 25 percent tariff. Twelve percent of the Plymouth, Wisconsin-based company’s revenue comes from exports, which is the fastest-growing segment of the business.

Sartori and its Mexican importer are each absorbing half the costs of the tariff. Schwager, the CEO, doesn’t see leaving the Mexican market as an option.

“If you lose space on the grocery store shelf, or you’re taken out of recipes in restaurants, that take years to get back,” he says. He hopes the trade dispute can be resolved and tariffs rolled back.... (End excerpts)
 
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#7
… President Trump has since explained what “magic wand” he will use....

It looks like the guy's “magic wand” is still sticking out after he buries himself. But where is his “magic wand” in the photo below? Perhaps it is covered up in somewhere. :)

 
Nov 2017
3,320
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#8
It looks like the guy's “magic wand” is still sticking out after he buries himself. But where is his “magic wand” in the photo below? Perhaps it is covered up in somewhere. :)

You are completely out in LEFT FIELD! :rolleyes:

 
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#10
5. The following are excerpts from the April 24, 2018 AP news report by Richard Lardner under the headline "Trump's trade war with China risks jobs and profits in working-class areas" at http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/national/ct-trump-china-tariffs-20180424-story.html

(Begin excerpts)
President Donald Trump's escalating dispute with China over trade and technology is threatening jobs and profits in working-class communities where his "America First" agenda hit home.

The Commerce Department has received more than 2,400 applications from companies seeking waivers from the administration's tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which may result in duty payments of millions of dollars for larger businesses. The department has begun posting the requests online for public comment; several of the applications released so far suggest deep misgivings with Trump's protectionist strategy, especially in areas where he won strong support during the 2016 election.

The tariffs are aimed primarily at China for flooding the global market with cheap steel and aluminum. But they've also led to confusion and uncertainty, according to Associated Press interviews and a review of records. In Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin, for example, businesses operating in the furniture, energy and food sectors have outlined the financial difficulties they'd face if they're not excused from the steel tariff.

In Okmulgee, Oklahoma, dozens of jobs hang in the balance as office furniture giant Steelcase waits to hear back from the Commerce Department.

A Steelcase subsidiary, PolyVision, operates a plant in Okmulgee that uses a special type of steel from Japan to manufacture a durable glass-like surface for whiteboards and architectural purposes. PolyVision "cannot and will not be able to procure" from U.S. companies the cold-rolled steel it requires "in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality," Steelcase said.

Trump won most of the votes cast for president in Okmulgee County. Without a waiver, Steelcase warned, the "economic viability of PolyVision (and) the small town of Okmulgee" would be jeopardized.

The waiver request also indicates that a $15 million plant expansion may be at risk. Steelcase and PolyVision are on the verge of making the investment, which would create new construction and manufacturing jobs, according to the request.

Roger Ballenger, Okmulgee's city manager, said he and other local officials are "very concerned about the situation with PolyVision."....

Economists Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman estimated last month that the tariffs would increase employment in the U.S. steel and aluminum industries by more than 26,000 jobs but also lead to the loss of 495,000 other jobs throughout the rest of the American economy....

The future is much murkier for another Baytown steel business, Borusan Mannesmann Pipe. Without a waiver, Borusan may face tariffs of $25 million to $30 million annually if it imports steel tubing and casing from its parent company in Turkey, according to information the company provided to the AP.

Borusan said the Baytown production line would no longer be competitive and "jobs would be threatened" if it cannot import 135,000 metric tons of steel annually over the next two years. The pipes Borusan produces are used primarily as casing for oil and natural gas wells.

But if Commerce says yes, Borusan will be able to unlock a $25 million investment in the Baytown facility as it seeks to become a "100 percent domestic supplier," according to the waiver request. An additional $50 million expansion in pipe fabrication capacity would follow, the company said, leading to as many as 170 new jobs.

Seneca Foods Corporation, the nation's largest vegetable canner, said in its waiver application that it's unclear, at best, if U.S. suppliers have the ability or willingness to expand their production in the long term to meet the company's annual demand for tinplated steel.

But "clearly they cannot meet demand in the short term," Seneca told Commerce officials. That means Seneca has to buy a portion of what it needs from overseas.

A person with knowledge of Seneca's situation said the company would face a $2.25 million duty if the Commerce Department doesn't approve its waiver request for 11,000 metric tons of tinplate it already agreed to purchase from China. The material is to be delivered this year and next, according to the waiver request. The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity.

Seneca said it employs more than 400 people at can-making facilities in Wisconsin and Idaho and near its headquarters in New York's Wayne County, where Trump bested Clinton. The company doesn't warn layoffs are imminent if the waiver isn't approved. Instead, the tariffs would likely come out of Seneca's bottom line, the person said. (End excerpts)
 
Nov 2017
3,320
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#11
Problem is, Reedak has fallen for the FAKE news media,




Such as garbage from the CNN hack, Jim Acosta:

Jim Acosta has the sadz. The untalented little man who rudely shouts unimportant questions at important people while in the employ of the ninth most trusted name in news out of ten, got heckled at a Trump rally in Tampa, Florida. Sad panda. The hecklers chanted "CNN sucks," which, okay, is true, but they were none too polite about it.

Acosta didn't like it. He reported, "Honestly, it felt like we weren’t in America anymore."

But, like virtually everything Acosta reports, this is just a reflection of his small-minded biases. The fact is, having a group of people scream at you and denigrate you is exactly what it feels like to be in America — if you don't happen to be a coastal elite. It has felt this way for the last twenty years at least. Every television show you watch, every movie, every woman's magazine, every comedian, and, yes, every news program tells you you suck. Your country sucks. Your culture sucks. Your religion and your morals suck. And you personally are one of those dumb-ass racists who clings to his Bible and talks funny.

If you believe your country should vet its immigrants, you're racist. If you voted for Donald Trump, you're racist. If you make a joke about Barack Obama on Facebook, you're racist twice. If you think motherhood is a woman's highest calling, you're sexist. If you take it ill when Islamists blow you up in the name of their nasty little god, you're Islamophobic. If you know that a man is a man even if he says he's a woman, you're transphobic. If you think it's fair to debate whether homosexual actions are moral or not, you're homophobic.

Every day. From every outlet. All the time. And now people are angry. Wonder why.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger says he told Trump his anti-press rhetoric could lead to violence. But the media's anti-Trump rhetoric already has led to violence: public officials rat-packed and bullied, Trump supporters harassed, White House spokes-lady Sarah Sanders having to live under guard. And yet when Sanders pointed this out to Look-At-Me-I'm-Jim Acosta, Acosta stormed out of the room. Hell, if he doesn't want to hear the truth, he could just stay home and watch CNN.

CNN's Acosta Walks Out of Briefing Room in a Huff After Sanders Refuses to Disavow Trump's Media Attacks
What's also appalling is that reporters answered Sanders by reminding her of the tragic shooting of journalists in Maryland. But that had nothing to do with Trump. It was the personal grudge of a madman. Even when these knuckleheads are protesting being called Fake News, they are purveying Fake News. Remarkable.

But most remarkable is this: the media seems to take no responsibility for the anger in the country. Not once — not one time — have I seen a reporter come onscreen and say, "Hey, you know what, maybe we are biased. Maybe we haven't listened. Maybe we have been arrogant and insulting. Maybe we do bear some responsibility for the anger against us."

When Muslim extremists destroyed the World Trade Center, David Letterman and others among the chattering classes went on TV and wondered: "Why do they hate us?" But they can't take the time to ask the same question about their fellow citizens. The Islamists are murdering pigs. Who cares why they hate us? These Trump supporters are just ordinary folks. If they were screaming at me, I'd do a moral inventory on myself before blaming them.

Truly, I do not want to see journalists hurt. Truly — though I love the fact that Trump gives the press a hard time — I cringe when he calls journalists enemies of the people. That's not the rhetoric I think he should use. But after twenty years of insults, twenty years of bias, twenty years of hating people for being white or male or straight or loyal to constitutional principles — twenty years at least — the press — the media in general — have no claim to respect. They're going to have to earn that back one honest story at a time.

For more commentary, listen to my podcast Monday through Thursday.

https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/hey-media-you-started-it/
 
Last edited:
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#12
6. The following are excerpts from the May 21, 2018 CNNMoney (New York) news report under the headline "Everything is getting more expensive, and 43% of families can't afford the basics" at https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/21/pf/applenews-consumer-prices/index.html

(Begin excerpts)
If you've been feeling like your paycheck isn't going as far as it used to, you're not imagining things.

Everything from gas to mortgages to your Chipotle order is getting more expensive.

Nearly 51 million US households don't earn enough to cover basics like rent and food.

Meanwhile, Amazon Prime members are getting a new discount and Ikea is offering a new credit card. Catch up on last week's money news here:

PRICES ARE GOING UP

After years of low inflation, consumer prices are rising as the economy gets stronger. Be ready to pay more for gas, your orders at McDonald's and Chipotle, and even your Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions.

Dozens of companies in recent weeks have said they already hiked prices or plan to in the coming months to combat inflation.

Plus, the Federal Reserve is gradually raising interest rates, which will make auto loans and mortgages more expensive, too.

MANY FAMILIES CAN'T AFFORD THE BASICS

Despite a stronger economy and low unemployment rates, people across the country are still struggling to make ends meet.

About 43% of US households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a new study by the United Way ALICE Project.

California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.

MIXED NEWS FOR THE CLASS OF 2018

There should be a lot more job openings for new college grads this year, but starting salaries won't be much higher than last year.... (End excerpts)
 
Nov 2017
3,320
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#13
So for how much longer are you going to continue to knock true prosperity? :giggle:

 
Oct 2012
1,985
405
NC
#15
I see it more as short term pain for long term gain. other presidents did not have the...guts lets say, to enforce righteous dealings with our neighbors. presidents like Obama were more than happy to give away the wests prosperity in the name of political correctness.
 
Nov 2017
3,320
85
FL Treasure Coast & South Central FL
#16
I see it more as short term pain for long term gain. other presidents did not have the...guts lets say, to enforce righteous dealings with our neighbors. presidents like Obama were more than happy to give away the wests prosperity in the name of political correctness.
EXACTLY like I said!!! :giggle:



Unfortunately for OTHER countries, they'll get greater pain, with little or NO gain!!! :giggle:
 
Jun 2013
463
24
Earth
#17
7. The following are excerpts from the July 23, 2018 article by Paul Davidson of USA TODAY under the headline "U.S. trade war with China, other countries: Layoffs, reduced hours, slimmer profits".

(Begin excerpts)
The bullets are flying in the intensifying U.S. trade war with other global powers, and the casualties are starting to mount – in layoffs, reduced worker hours and thinner company profits.

While the damage has been limited so far, it would spread quickly if the Trump administration follows through on all its threatened tariffs, economists say. President Donald Trump significantly ramped up the fight Friday with fresh tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese imports.

This is hurting the economy but so far it’s manageable,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “If the war continues to escalate, it will do more damage and at some point it will undercut the good economy” and trigger a recession.

Trans-Matic, of Holland, Michigan, shapes metal, mostly into auto parts, as well as components for door locks. It has paid higher steel costs for several months as U.S. steelmakers raised prices in anticipation of higher American tariffs on metal imports, company Chief Financial Officer Steve Patterson says.

Trans-Matic has passed along the price hikes to its auto-supplier customers, but some have scaled back orders, reducing Trans-Matic’s revenue in that key sector by 5 to 10 percent, Patterson says. As a result, the company is giving its 300 U.S. employees about five hours a week in overtime instead of their usual 10.

“When you cut them back ... they get grumpy,” he says. And with a low unemployment rate creating a tight labor market that’s giving workers more leverage, Patterson worries Trans-Matic employees could bolt for competitors. “This is all causing a bit of chaos,” he says....

After the EU slapped a 31 percent tariff on motorcycles, iconic Harley-Davidson said it would move some production overseas, sparking a war of words with Trump.

In Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Mid-Continent Nail, the nation’s largest nail maker, laid off 60 workers last month. Sales plunged 70 percent after Trump placed a 25 percent tariff on steel from Mexico and Canada. When the company boosted its prices, customers defected. Now, Mid-Continent is strongly considering a second round of 200 layoffs, company spokeswoman Elizabeth Heaton says, and all 500 employees could be axed by Labor Day.

The company's woes are rippling through the region. SEMO Box, a packaging company in Cape Girardeau, has said it will lay off four temporary workers because of the slowdown at Mid-Continent, according to Mid-Continent and The Associated Press. SEMO wouldn’t comment.

In Phoenix, Greg Hankerson, co-owner of Vintage Industrial, which makes custom steel furniture, says the 25-percent tariff on imported steel has boosted raw-material costs, which forced him to raise prices 5 to 10 percent earlier this year for various items, with more price hikes possible.

In Wisconsin, Regal Ware, which makes cookware and small kitchen appliances, is getting dinged at both ends of the trade shootout. The West Bend company, with 200 U.S. employees, has paid $150,000 to $175,000 more for steel and aluminum as a result of the U.S. tariffs, says Doug Reigle, vice president of supply chain management. It’s absorbing part of that and passing along part in a 2.5 to 5 percent surcharge.

Meanwhile, 65 percent of its revenue comes from overseas. Its products in Europe were hit with a 25 percent tariff last month, costing the company up to $2.5 million in sales, Reigle says. He says the company easily could have moved abroad but instead decided to stay in the U.S., investing $7 million in plant improvements the past five years.

We kept jobs here, and I almost feel we’re being punished for that,” he says.

Elsewhere in Wisconsin, the dairy industry is reeling from $387 million in Mexican tariffs of 15 to 25 percent on U.S. cheese. Wholesale cheese and butter prices have slumped recently as buyers and sellers worry about the effects of the duties, says Pete Hardin, publisher of Milkweed, an industry publication.

“We are looking at a washout of 20 percent of Wisconsin dairy farm milk income on a monthly basis,” he says. “That’s how dangerous this mess is.”

That’s because dairy farmers have started cutting their prices to wholesalers to offset the higher tariffs, reducing their profits. The state’s farmers already were in trouble because of a milk surplus.

Another round of 25 percent U.S. tariffs on $34 billion of Chinese imports took effect Friday and includes items such as medical devices, auto parts and industrial machinery.

Those measures are aimed at fighting what administration officials say is China’s theft of U.S. intellectual property and its insistence that companies divulge valuable technology to enter China’s market. Beijing is lashing back with duties on American meat, seafood and SUVs, among other products. An additional $16 billion in tariffs, by both sides, are expected later this summer.

Over the next year, all these tariffs are expected to translate into the loss of about 170,000 jobs and a tenth of a percentage point in economic growth, Zandi estimates. But Trump has threatened an additional $400 billion in tariffs on Chinese shipments to the U.S. and $275 billion in auto imports. Those would push total job losses to 700,000 and lop a half-percentage point of economic growth, likely nudging the country into recession, he says. (End excerpts)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-war-china-layoffs-thinner-profits/762569002/
 
Last edited: