31–40 of 74 posts
On the other hand, you have this ridiculous flailing, which actually makes the establishment look good. There really is no alternative.
Makes me want to start drinking. But since tariffs are up on scotch, I'll have a bourbon instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parmasean isn't an extravagance.
Parmesan cheese from Parma is. That was one of the shocking things to me about European stores: there was only Parmesan (or yes, Parmesan-style) cheese from Italy due to food provenance laws, and yes, it was some of the most expensive cheese in the store.
The point is: it's not called parmigiano or parmesan, as that would be cheating the consumer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drops demand for same items, hurting the producers and the countries they're based in, while maybe also diverting consumer money to domestic alternatives (or at least other countries that aren't quite so tariff'd). Right? Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?
I'm no expert, but I'd assume it's to make good on other trade negotiations the public isn't privy to. In regards to the like of the extra $9b free up for US exporters to Japan, mostly ag. Complete and utter hidden... on the front page of the ustr.gov site. Takes a real investigative journalist expert to find. I mean, who would ever look on the same site on China trade deals to find negotiations opening up with other…
There's plenty of hyperbole out there, but hyperbole doesn't negate reality. China is buying fewer treasury bonds, and this is one reason why the bottom fell out of the market for purchasing U.S. treasury bonds, requiring Federal Reserve intervention. It's one, small reason, but it will become increasingly more important as Chinese purchases drop while U.S. deficits continue their upward climb.
The reason you know Trump isn't crazy like a fox is because his policies are inconsistent and erratic. Demanding your investment managers to buy high, sell low doesn't make you Warren Buffett. Starting a trade war with the expectation that the other guy will flinch before you doesn't make you a cunning strategist; it just makes you dangerous.
If it’s a Boeing, I ain’t boarding
On one hand, you have a sclerotic political establishment that at best hasn't figured out that the '90s free trade playbook doesn't work on China and at worst only cares about the WTO for its handy role in policy laundering. On the other hand, you have this ridiculous flailing, which actually makes the establishment look good. There really is no alternative. Makes me want to start drinking. But since tariffs are up o…
The EU subsidized Airbus, which hurt the American company, Boeing. Therefore, all Americans have to pay 25% more for european wines, cheeses, and whiskey. How does this make any sense?
Drops demand for same items, hurting the producers and the countries they're based in, while maybe also diverting consumer money to domestic alternatives (or at least other countries that aren't quite so tariff'd). Right? Not siding with the tariffs, but that's the idea, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is essentially a WTO fine, per the article... the US won a case dating back to 2005. Regarding the effective price increase, it would likely be shared between consumer and producer. Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose).
> Truly, most of us will just switch from scotch to bourbon until this is cleared up (which is the purpose). I'm gonna pass on that, bourbon is too sweet and tastes gross to me. I suspect if you like Scotch then Bourbon is probably a bad fit.
It just happens to be a very specific market where I would dare to say (and this is just my opinion) most consumers are willing to pay a little more for the real deal, that is, the imported goods instead of looking for "local substitutes"...
Both the taste preference and the "perceived value" are super important in the market for alcoholic beverages.
After reading this, I had the stupid question:
Couldn't producers of tariffed goods in an EU country send their goods to a shipping hub of a nearby non-EU country to change the country of origin to avoid the tariffs?
Example: Could or could not Scottish whisky producers send their bottles to be shipped from Iceland to America to avoid the tariffs?
My presumption of the article is that places matter more to the tariffs than the actual goods themselves sourced from anywhere else (?).