- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump Announces New Tariffs On Aluminum And Steel
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:37 pm to Rougarou13
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:37 pm to Rougarou13
We are, but it's won't be enough.
0
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:37 pm to Tiguar
quote:Some enterprising Democrat is going to start calling it a "beer tax"
Your taco truck will be made from US aluminum and have overpriced food as a result. Deal with it.
(Or would if they had any interest in winning elections)
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:39 pm to Jjdoc
This is dumb. We've tried it before, and it didn't work out too well. If he wants to target China for them subsidizing their steel industry then he should use countervailing duties.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:39 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Your taco truck will be made from US aluminum and have overpriced food as a result. Deal with it.
funny but sad
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:40 pm to Iosh
hey baw I saw one of those liberal arse shows on Netflix called Ugly Food and it said you Houstonians have access to something called viet-cajun crawfish and I am very jealous
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:42 pm to Jyrdis
quote:I don't think he wants to target China, I think he's an ideological protectionist. Tariffs, immigration, and badge-licking are the three issues he's been consistent about his entire life and it would be foolish to expect him to change now. "China" was an applause line, like "the wall." He was offered the wall but really just wants less immigration, period. Cohn/McMaster will try to talk him down to specific countries, but he really just wants less imports, period.
If he wants to target China for them subsidizing their steel industry then he should use countervailing duties.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:42 pm to Rougarou13
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:44 pm to Jjdoc
Good
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:44 pm to DelU249
quote:We do, in fact, have an FTA with South Korea
We have no FTA with China or South Korea
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:45 pm to Iosh
quote:
I don't think he wants to target China, I think he's an ideological protectionist. Tariffs, immigration, and badge-licking are the three issues he's been consistent about his entire life and it would be foolish to expect him to change now. "China" was an applause line, like "the wall." He was offered the wall but really just wants less immigration, period. Cohn/McMaster will try to talk him down to specific countries, but he really just wants less imports, period.
perfect
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Don’t support
This is not free market conservatism
do you understand the concept of 'dumping'? these foreign companies are heavily subsidized by their governments to allow them to dump shite into the US to destroy our industries.
hard for a US steel company to compete with a foreign competitor when that foreign competitor is being propped up by their government for political reasons.
fair trade <> free trade.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:46 pm to Jjdoc
I assumed that they would be import tariffs, not export, but the quote didn't specify. They are only on imports.
WSJ Article
Honestly, even if you ARE pro-globalization, this is still for the better. China is where we were getting a bulk of our steel imports from, and their steel is TERRIBLE compared to American steel. It's cheap for a reason.
WSJ Article
Honestly, even if you ARE pro-globalization, this is still for the better. China is where we were getting a bulk of our steel imports from, and their steel is TERRIBLE compared to American steel. It's cheap for a reason.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:46 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
This is not free market conservatism
Please define "free market conservatism".
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:48 pm to skrayper
quote:
It's cheap for a reason.
Prices among differentiated goods SHOULD be different for a reason. A reason other than crony protectionism, anyway.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:50 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Don’t support
This is not free market conservatism
It's one of the reasons I didn't support Trump at the outset.
All the lefties think that those of us who support him just default have always supported him.
But, nope. It's just a case of taking the good with the bad.
No one was running.........and I mean NO ONE was running who I didn't feel that way about.
So. I picked the one where the priorities of the day mattered.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:50 pm to HempHead
quote:
Agreed. When the first economic protections levied against the Chinese for solar production were announced, all of my previous (layperson) economic understanding said that it wouldn't end well for consumers or producers here in the states. Lo and behold, a Chinese company announced that they would open up shop on American soil to produce solar panels. I don't quite get it.
I think a couple things are clouding the usual analysis:
- When you have a market that commands an outsized share of consumption/production, things work differently. For instance, there was a time when Walmart could force unprofitable practices upon producers who had no alternatives.
- Most theory toward free markets being always good and protectionism always being bad are written by intellectuals in nations which at the time of writing, were net exporters and thus inclined to argue thus.
Not that free markets are not advantageous over a long enough timeline, but there is clearly evidence that over short terms (1781-1830s, for instance) that targeted temporary protectionism can be a beneficial policy.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:51 pm to Iosh
quote:
I don't think he wants to target China, I think he's an ideological protectionist.
That may be true, but it is still dumb. No sense in harming consumers and reducing societal welfare further than protecting a few thousand jobs.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:52 pm to Iosh
quote:
They're not even top 10
My bad, I misread something and didn't think to follow up.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 12:54 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
Most theory toward free markets being always good and protectionism always being bad are written by intellectuals in nations which at the time of writing, were net exporters and thus inclined to argue thus.
And those theories are still being tested on a yearly basis, and still show to hold mostly true. Plus, those theories have been expounded upon when said nations were no longer net exporters of the goods they used be net exporters of.
quote:
Not that free markets are not advantageous over a long enough timeline, but there is clearly evidence that over short terms (1781-1830s, for instance) that targeted temporary protectionism can be a beneficial policy.
What is this evidence?
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News