91–100 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to "negotiate" with the Trump administration involves contributing to the Trump businesses.
Is this true? Do you have an example?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada's dairy industry has had a long history of protection. It is likely that this industry would not exist without this protection.
It’s a horrible idea to get rid of your local industry of basic, vital needs. A country could squeeze your balls by cutting off exports to you.
Opinion: Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might. https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-amer...
I am finding it difficult to accept this is the reality we live in: "the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a pers…
Is America Great Again yet? A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage?
Don't worry about steel, we'll open the steel mills up again. We have to build plenty of new aircraft carriers so we'll need a lot of steel. And they'll have steam catapults, none of this newfangled computer nonsense. And the wall. The wall will be steel, too, of course, so when the Mexicans try to climb up it they'll just slide right back down. In fact, we'll need two walls now, one for the Canadians, too.
Sigh.
I wonder if this one will fondle Angela Merkel too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, not so much states that voted for Trump, but small-population states that rack up lots of Senate votes. Put punitive tariffs on corn, soybean, and pork exports, and you'll have a dozen senators imploring Trump to back off.
Interesting that it's perfectly legal for foreign nations to pressure folks into voting one way or another by punishing them for voting in a particular president (and possibly hurting his/his party's chances of re-election), but it's not if they run ads to try and pursuade voters. It's almost like indirect election influencing vs direct election influencing (Russia in 2016). Somehow one is bad, but the other isn't.
Can anyone point to an historical case study where protective tariffs resulted in a better economic or social outcome? I can’t help but recall the saying: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers soon will.” Not that I think the United States is going to war with Canada, but the (German-dominated) EU and China are less certain.
Tariffs on corn prompted a guy called James Wilson to create The Economist, of course you may or may not regard that as a positive outcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#History
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean sanctions, not tariffs or quotas. There is not a single country that does not apply tariffs or quotas.
Singapore doesn't. Not in the trade protectionist sense anyway.
https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that it's perfectly legal for foreign nations to pressure folks into voting one way or another by punishing them for voting in a particular president (and possibly hurting his/his party's chances of re-election), but it's not if they run ads to try and pursuade voters. It's almost like indirect election influencing vs direct election influencing (Russia in 2016). Somehow one is bad, but the other isn't.
It's not about targeting people because they voted for Trump. It's about targeting a small, export-focused segment of the economy that has outsized political power. Agricultural sectors of the economy tend to fit this billet in pretty much every country, which is why agricultural tariffs are the thorniest parts of trade agreements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean sanctions, not tariffs or quotas. There is not a single country that does not apply tariffs or quotas.
You call them sanctions when you talk about your enemies, you call them tariffs when you do it to your friends. The difference is nearly 0.
Is Trump’s point that the prices of these goods abroad are artificially low, so he’s going to implement tariffs to correct for that? If so, do counter-tariffs strengthen this argument? This would seem to create an infinite protectionist feedback loop.
Which is why it's so confusing that Trump didn't just slap anti-dumping duties on China, which quite frankly everyone agrees with. The best guess is that Trump thought that he could use the steel tariffs as an easy way to wring concessions out of trade partners... and declaring the tariffs a matter of national security is the one way he can do that without having to get Congress's approval (as even many Republicans in Congress are horrified by this).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Singapore doesn't. Not in the trade protectionist sense anyway.
Not really, even Singapore has its duties. It's only 0% for everything if you're going for re-export. https://www.customs.gov.sg/businesses/valuation-duties-taxes...
The 20% on cars isn't to protect the (non-existent) car manufacturing industry of Singapore, but to reduce demand for cars.