Trump threatens to tax European auto imports

[The Old Bull]

Good tome to have a look at NATO boot the yanks out of Europe

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, pokerface1 said:

Don't let the media pull the bag over your heads. The USA hardy import any steel or aluminium from the EU.

Steel and aluminum, which Trump has targeted, account for about 2% of world trade, according to Capital Economics.

Nearly 17% of steel imported into the US comes from Canada, according to S&P Global Platts. South Korea, Mexico, Brazil and China are also major exporters to the US.

This is not fake news but more misleading news which is aimed at the FX market traders, hedge funds and dark pools etc. The US Dollar has turned Ultra bullish hence there are those institution that are short the US dollar and suffering. It may well be that Trump is suffering as well or some of his cronies have been into his ear.

The timing of his announcement came right on the heels of the dollars surge. I am a FX trader so I keep my finger on he pulse.

Dont know about that, but do know that Tata Steel in the Netherlands and UK are deeply worried about this.

[Basil B]

Bird Brain tweets again...

[Basil B]

4 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Good tome to have a look at NATO boot the yanks out of Europe

Totally agree...

 

I am sure we and US would mutually agree, particularly as DT has already questioned the US spending on NATO...

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

That's a WTO rule.  A treaty doesn't supersede the Constitution!  http://www.wl-tradelaw.com/gatt-article-xxis-national-security-exception-the-ultimate-trade-policy-conundrum/

So much confusion it's hard to know where to begin. 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

A treaty is the law of the land. Superseding the Constitution is not even an issue here.

In fact, treaties aren't even an issue here.

If Congress passes a law that allows the President to invoke national security to impose tariffs, then he can do that. And that is, in fact, what Congress has done.

"To justify the tariffs, Trump is using a blunt instrument, namely Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows a president to act unilaterally if national security is at stake. The WTO can’t stop Trump because its charter includes a rarely used exemption for such cases. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/national-security-is-a-good-reason-for-protection-but-not-of-steel-and-aluminum

[Monomial]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

So much confusion it's hard to know where to begin. 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

A treaty is the law of the land. Superseding the Constitution is not even an issue here.

In fact, treaties aren't even an issue here.

If Congress passes a law that allows the President to invoke national security to impose tariffs, then he can do that. And that is, in fact, what Congress has done.

"To justify the tariffs, Trump is using a blunt instrument, namely Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows a president to act unilaterally if national security is at stake. The WTO can’t stop Trump because its charter includes a rarely used exemption for such cases. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/national-security-is-a-good-reason-for-protection-but-not-of-steel-and-aluminum

 

I stopped reading this article when I got here:

 

Quote

global trade growth could shudder to a halt. That would harm everyone.

 

A religious dogma presented without any evidence or investigative journalism. Yet another lazy journalist who is simply out to repeat mantras without expending a thought for what is actually true.
 

No, a halt to tariff free global trade would not harm everyone. It would hurt some, some would benefit, and many who are barely making it from day to day would probably not notice a significant difference. It would, of course, hurt corporate profits, which seems to be what the author really meant by "harm everyone."

 

I am not saying all trade is bad, but the world did just fine for centuries with high tariffs. Ending them would simply put an end to the ubiquitous exploitation of poor countries by multinationals. It would hardly be bad for everyone. But it would be bad for many who are benefiting from the current system.  I would just once like to see an honest journalist. Sadly, those don't exist any more.

 

Anyway, who really knows what will happen if tariffs on commodities come back. Certainly not Peter Coy at Bloomberg...

 

[thaiguzzi]

Er, a lot of Mercs, BM's and VW's are actually made in the USA.

Just like Nissan, Toyota et al, ie American jobs. VW is one of Carolina's largest employers. How's that gonna work then?

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

I stopped reading this article when I got here:

 

 

A religious dogma presented without any evidence or investigative journalism. Yet another lazy journalist who is simply out to repeat mantras without expending a thought for what is actually true.
 

No, a halt to tariff free global trade would not harm everyone. It would hurt some, some would benefit, and many who are barely making it from day to day would probably not notice a significant difference. It would, of course, hurt corporate profits, which seems to be what the author really meant by "harm everyone."

 

I am not saying all trade is bad, but the world did just fine for centuries with high tariffs. Ending them would simply put an end to the ubiquitous exploitation of poor countries by multinationals. It would hardly be bad for everyone. But it would be bad for many who are benefiting from the current system.  I would just once like to see an honest journalist. Sadly, those don't exist any more.

 

Anyway, who really knows what will happen if tariffs on commodities come back. Certainly not Peter Coy at Bloomberg...

 

"David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engage in international trade even when one country's workers are more efficient at producing every single good than workers in other countries. He demonstrated that if two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided that there exist differences in labor productivity between both countries.^[5][6] Widely regarded as one of the most powerful^[7] yet counter-intuitive^[8] insights in economics, Ricardo's theory implies that comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage is responsible for much of international trade."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

 

It's easy to play the sceptic if you don't feel compelled to provide arguments with rigor or the backing of facts. Virtually all people who have studied the issue, side with Ricardo on this one. And they are backed by huge amounts of data and voluminous studies.

 

[Monomial]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"David Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engage in international trade even when one country's workers are more efficient at producing every single good than workers in other countries. He demonstrated that if two countries capable of producing two commodities engage in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the good for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other good, provided that there exist differences in labor productivity between both countries.^[5][6] Widely regarded as one of the most powerful^[7] yet counter-intuitive^[8] insights in economics, Ricardo's theory implies that comparative advantage rather than absolute advantage is responsible for much of international trade."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

 

It's easy to play the sceptic if you don't feel compelled to provide arguments with rigor or the backing of facts. Virtually all people who have studied the issue, side with Ricardo on this one. And they are backed by huge amounts of data and voluminous studies.

 

 

You missed the whole point of what I am saying.

 

The journalist stated "this is bad for everyone".  No, it isn't bad for everyone. Modern economic theory deals only with averages, and true, on average, it may lower economic growth. But that is not "bad for everyone". It is good for the steel worker in the USA who keeps his job, for example. It is also good for those who are losing their livelihoods to destructive industrial practices.

 

My point is that the metrics we use to measure what is "good" and what is "bad" need to be fundamentally rethought. The fact that virtually all people studying economics agree is only true if you accept that the axioms presented as "good" are in fact "good". Yes, they are good for banks and corporations, but for any specific individual, that may not be the case. And it may not even be the case for a specific country, even if you can argue it is good "in general".

 

Economics misses many things which are not counted, such as not properly accounting for environmental destruction, pollution, increasing stress and decreased quality of life. (People being put out of work is included in this list.) These "externalities" are things that affect real people. So no, I do not accept the premise that most studying the issue side with Ricardo. Virtually all economists may side with Ricardo, but not "virtually all people who have studied the issue".  What is good by economic standards isn't necessarily good for everyone. It is easy to gloss over this fact if you don't feel compelled to justify your assumptions.

 

 

 

[observer90210]

Well pity for the VW or the Peugeot's Made in Europe, but on the other hand those intending to purchase their Porsche, Austin or McLaren in the US, would be able to shell out the few extra tax $ !!....And what about the European car makers who have delocalized their production to plants in South America, Asia or other nonEU nations ?

Edited March 4, 2018 by observer90210

[halloween]

17 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

This is after the EU threatens to tax Harley Davidson and Bourbon? 

Sounds like tit for tat. 

The tit comes first.

[Tug]

This is one of Donald's diversion cards to be played when he needs to divert attition away from something and feed his base some red meat it will cost more jobs than it will create more bad from the orange baby man clown

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, observer90210 said:

Well pity for the VW or the Peugeot's Made in Europe, but on the other hand those intending to purchase their Porsche, Austin or McLaren in the US, would be able to shell out the few extra tax $ !!....And what about the European car makers who have delocalized their production to plants in South America, Asia or other nonEU nations ?

Austin?

 

No point slapping retaliatory duties on American cars. Nobody in Europe would buy them anyway ? 

[mtls2005]

BMW and M-B have decent sized plants in the U.S. (SC and AL), with thousands of employees.  BMW actually exports a huge amount of vehicles (~ 300,000 annually) manufactured in the U.S. to other countries. I assume BMW would get some sort of 'credit' to balance their imports from say, Germany, against their exports from South Carolina?

 

The "national security" argument seems weak to me.

 

And if tariffs are such a great idea why haven't they been implemented before, especially given the failure of GWB's brief steel tariff in March 2002- December 2003, and more strongly supported by Republicans and economists.

 

Lastly, we have made commitments via the WTO which this proposal may be in violation of, so hopefully, that aspect has been clearly thought through.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by mtls2005

[zaphod reborn]

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

So much confusion it's hard to know where to begin. 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

A treaty is the law of the land. Superseding the Constitution is not even an issue here.

In fact, treaties aren't even an issue here.

If Congress passes a law that allows the President to invoke national security to impose tariffs, then he can do that. And that is, in fact, what Congress has done.

"To justify the tariffs, Trump is using a blunt instrument, namely Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows a president to act unilaterally if national security is at stake. The WTO can’t stop Trump because its charter includes a rarely used exemption for such cases. "

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/national-security-is-a-good-reason-for-protection-but-not-of-steel-and-aluminum

 

Sorry, but I have to take you to law school on this one.  You are so wrong.  Although it's never been directly decided by the SCOTUS, there is a plethora of SCOTUS cases that have indicated that a treaty that violates the U.S. Consitution is void.  This is from the annotation for Article VI of the US Constitution.

 

 “The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

Edited March 5, 2018 by zaphod reborn

[mtls2005]

We're told that the President does have the authority, via legislation (Trade Expansion Act, 1962) to invoke tariffs.

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-76/pdf/STATUTE-76-Pg872.pdf

 

Section 232, Safeguarding National Security.

 

I don't think SCOTUS has reviewed any cases re: section 232, and the President's "powers"?

 

Secy of Commerce Ross released a report pursuant to section 232 ~ 3 weeks ago, so this was being prepared. I think Trump just decided to drop it early to control the news cycle a bit?

 

Secretary Ross Releases Steel and Aluminum 232 Reports in Coordination with White House

 

Today, Secretary Wilbur Ross released reports on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s investigations into the impact on our national security from imports of steel mill products and from imports of wrought and unwrought aluminum. These investigations were carried out under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. All classified and business confidential information in the reports was redacted before the release.

 

“I am glad that we were able to provide this analysis and these recommendations to the President,” said Secretary Ross. “I look forward to his decision on any potential course of action.”

 

The Department of Commerce found that the quantities and circumstances of steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” as defined by Section 232.

 

https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2018/02/secretary-ross-releases-steel-and-aluminum-232-reports-coordination

 

 

I'm not certain the same argument (National Security) could be applied to the import of automobiles?

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by mtls2005

[ilostmypassword]

14 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

I stopped reading this article when I got here:

 

 

A religious dogma presented without any evidence or investigative journalism. Yet another lazy journalist who is simply out to repeat mantras without expending a thought for what is actually true.
 

No, a halt to tariff free global trade would not harm everyone. It would hurt some, some would benefit, and many who are barely making it from day to day would probably not notice a significant difference. It would, of course, hurt corporate profits, which seems to be what the author really meant by "harm everyone."

 

I am not saying all trade is bad, but the world did just fine for centuries with high tariffs. Ending them would simply put an end to the ubiquitous exploitation of poor countries by multinationals. It would hardly be bad for everyone. But it would be bad for many who are benefiting from the current system.  I would just once like to see an honest journalist. Sadly, those don't exist any more.

 

Anyway, who really knows what will happen if tariffs on commodities come back. Certainly not Peter Coy at Bloomberg...

 

I cited that article to disprove the falsehood propounded by Zaphod_Reborn that Trump didn't have the authority to impose tariffs on his own. He clearly does. Which is why I quoted not the line you are quoting but the relevant sentences having to with the law that gives Trump permission. Now if you've got a problem with that statement of fact, there's not much I can do about it.

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

Sorry, but I have to take you to law school on this one.  You are so wrong.  Although it's never been directly decided by the SCOTUS, there is a plethora of SCOTUS cases that have indicated that a treaty that violates the U.S. Consitution is void.  This is from the annotation for Article VI of the US Constitution.

 

 “The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

I don't know who you think you're taking issue with. I never said that a treaty overrode the constitution.  But the constitution does say that a treaty is the law.

And in this case, it's entirely irrelevant to your contention that Trump violated the Constitution by imposing tariffs. He did not violate the Constitution. He has the authority to do what he did. I cited to you the relevant law giving him the authority. What more do you need?

And doesn't common sense tell you that if Trump was violating the Constitution, all sorts of opponents would be taking him to court on those grounds?

[Guest]

Hmm.. think like Trump.

 

Less cheaper foreign steel -> higher steel prices -> less infrastructure and housing development in the USA -> higher value for existing properties? 

 

Russia check:

Quote

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian metals and mining companies face relatively little harm from any introduction of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, analysts and company representatives said on Friday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-trump-russia/u-s-tariffs-may-test-their-mettle-but-russian-steelmakers-safe-idUSKCN1GE1C0

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Guest

[thaiguzzi]

This isn't new.

The Americans have been so far behind European and Japanese vehicle technology for decades.

In the 50's America had only ONE motorcycle manufacturer after Indian went tits up.

They were faced with a huge market for cheaper, faster and more up to date British models.

What did they do?

Slapped tariffs on the imports and even changed the rules in the racing as their SV (side valves ) could not compete against the faster OHV (overhead valve) British bikes. Races became 750 SV vs 500 OHV.

In the 80's Ronnie Reagan did the same thing, this time against the Japanese.

And now, in 2018 HD still exists, but the tech is, er, somewhat dated.

Sound familiar?

 

[Orac]

Playing with fire.

Higher costs to businesses will put pressure on margins just when stocks are at all time highs and reduction of earnings per share could trigger a sell off.

Also the inflationary effect could also speed up increases in interest rates this pushing up the cost of debt and also attract money away from equities.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[dunroaming]

Well Trump's proposals about tariffs on steel are directly against WTO rules but I doubt America's number one tit will pay any attention to that.  And Britain thinks it can get a good trade agreement with the USA?  Need to get rid of the moron Trump first!

[Khun Jean]

I am confused. Trump promised his voters that he will do this. And when he does, it is suddenly wrong? Sure be unhappy with it, but it seems to me that keeping a promise is what was lacking for the last 100 years. What happened to democracy (i mean republic).

 

[dunroaming]

14 minutes ago, Khun Jean said:

I am confused. Trump promised his voters that he will do this. And when he does, it is suddenly wrong? Sure be unhappy with it, but it seems to me that keeping a promise is what was lacking for the last 100 years. What happened to democracy (i mean republic).

 

Trump promised many things and fortunately failed on most.  Just because he promised to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.  It is against WTO rules and regulations.  It will be very damaging to the US economy.  Of course people are unhappy about and they are voicing their concerns.  To stand aside and say nothing would be pretty pathetic

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, thaiguzzi said:

This isn't new.

The Americans have been so far behind European and Japanese vehicle technology for decades.

In the 50's America had only ONE motorcycle manufacturer after Indian went tits up.

They were faced with a huge market for cheaper, faster and more up to date British models.

What did they do?

Slapped tariffs on the imports and even changed the rules in the racing as their SV (side valves ) could not compete against the faster OHV (overhead valve) British bikes. Races became 750 SV vs 500 OHV.

In the 80's Ronnie Reagan did the same thing, this time against the Japanese.

And now, in 2018 HD still exists, but the tech is, er, somewhat dated.

Sound familiar?

 

Yes, the success of the British Motoring Industry is an inspiration to the world.

[tomacht8]

Maybe the rest of the world should start taxing unhealthy food like McD, Burger K, KFC, Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc. Also the malfunctioning Microsoft products, Intel spy processors, HD bikes, Nike, Lewis.
Incredible that the citizens of the United States let such a fart at the atomic buttons.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Trump promised many things and fortunately failed on most.  Just because he promised to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.  It is against WTO rules and regulations.  It will be very damaging to the US economy.  Of course people are unhappy about and they are voicing their concerns.  To stand aside and say nothing would be pretty pathetic

Actually, it's not clear that it's against WTO rules. They do allow for inivocation of national security as a reason to impose tariffs. Obviously that's nonsense, especially in the case of the Canadians, but he might get away with it.

[riclag]

On 3/4/2018 at 12:52 PM, spidermike007 said:

One can only hope. That is a personal dream at this point. He certainly deserves a long jail term. Not so much for what he has done as president (he has not done much) but for the 4.7 billion dollars he stole from the small contractors over the course of his career. At the time of his election, there were 3,600 lawsuits pending against him. Has anyone in history been sued that often? I doubt it. 

 

The tariffs could be his undoing. It is all about the economy. He really runs the risk of slowing down the US economy. That would be the end of him. It's the economy stupid!

Can you show the source for that 4.7 billion dollars Donald Trump personally stole !

[mtls2005]

11 hours ago, Khun Jean said:

I am confused. Trump promised his voters that he will do this. And when he does, it is suddenly wrong?

 

He promised his "base" that he would do many, many, many things.

 

His "base" is just a portion of the country, is not a majority, and is shrinking.

 

Quite honestly, Congress should have as much to say on trade issues as the President.

 

Invoking "National Security" "issues", when your own military and DoD does not agree, to protect a few industries and jobs seems short-sighted.

 

By most accounts, he dropped this idea as a result of a legendarily negative week in his Presidency.

 

 

 

 

[thaiguzzi]

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, the success of the British Motoring Industry is an inspiration to the world.

You missed the point.