U.S. Steel reopening Illinois plant after tariff announcement

originally posted by: SatansPride
a reply to: nwtrucker

Yeah. When the wall prototypes first came out I was telling people to invest in U.S Steel & Allegheny Technologies. I think that was like 6 months to a year ago.

I will keep your next prediction in mind....

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nwtrucker

The naysayers cite the potential job loss due to those higher prices domestically.

Not just job losses but the rise in cost could prompt a rise in inflation which would lead to interest rate rises that will also hit the consumer , people with less money to spend spend less money so it would also have a knock on effect on the wider economy.

Add that to the reciprocal tariffs imposed by effected countries on American goods and you have a recipe for recession.

This.

People are happy to celebrate the short term gains without considering wider potential implications.

Economically and militarily is not good for the US to be down to one fulltime aluminum smelter in the entire country.

Cant understand why Mexico and Canada cant take in China steel and make a profit selling it to the US. That is probably going to happen.

Oh and WOW did anyone notice haw fast little rocket man changed his tune?

originally posted by: snarfbot
but but, i seem to recall obama saying this was impossible, a statement supported by every newspaper, headline news.

something to the effect of: "those jobs are never coming back" spoken in a patronizing tone with a condescending smile. what a pos.

Well that is simply because Obama would not have been willing to impose tariffs. Look at the flack Don took from capital itself or otherwise know as deeply invested in China. They, many, don't want tariffs as well.

And notice what we are talking about here is steel with a tariff protection. Don't see a multitude of other industries coming back. Industries that produce idem more likely to create an obvious pinch. Hell the Chines are importing dog food for petes sake.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The anti-Trump agenda really confuses me sometimes... When the discussion was tax cuts, the argument was that income taxes wouldn't slow economic development on affected businesses, but when it is tariffs, it is argued that they will slow economic development on affected industries. Both are taxes affecting the cost of doing business... so which is it? Are taxes on foreign imports bad for America and taxes on Americans good for America? What manner of warped logic is that? 

What's really strange to me is that the "party" lines just a few decades ago were Dems and Labor were for protectionism while Republicans pushed for free trade that benefited MNCs. Now the hierarchy of each party is proglobalism and a small subset still believe in protecting native industry. "Those jobs are never coming back".

For the record, I'm pro-steel and aluminum tariff because it keeps alive a vital national industry. I'm against the washing machine tariff as anything other than a short term tool as leverage. I'm okay with, but not in love with the solar tariff. It depends on how vital you think green energy and technology is to our national interest, I guess.

The tariffs (or our perceived willingness to use them as a tool) are also useful for helping negotiate better trade agreements. Many of the countries harping at us already have high tariffs aimed specifically at US exports to their country to protect their own industries (look at China and car tariffs and duties).

People hate tariffs because they don’t understand them. So an exaggeration is in order. You want to buy a rocking chair and let’s say each of these cost $200 because of tariffs. Which one are you going to buy?



Without tariffs these chairs would be $200 and $75 respectively. Now which one are you going to buy?

Did your answer change? So what about the extra $125? That goes to Uncle Sam. So what about a value added tax instead so Uncle Sam gets his cut? Well the VAT is $75 so you are going to pay $275 or $150.

Now here is the difference between tariffs and free trade. The manufacturer pays for $30 in material for either one. Pays the carpenter $20 or $10 respectively and either profits $150 or $45 because he has to pay $125. Without tariffs the profits are exactly the same $150 and $45 for each manufacturer. This is of course assuming that the manufacturer does the retailing as well. Otherwise the price of everything goes up $25 due to retail markup.

So what happens with the tariff versus without? The consumer has more choices for better products at the same price. The more skilled laborer has better pay than just accepting lower wages and the government doesn’t pay the skilled worker unemployment or supplemental support while gaining income on the tariffs which could reduce income taxes on everybody or be spent on things for public benefit like scientific research grants.

It helps locally at the expense of the imported product. The counter balance being reduction of suppressed wages, unemployment and stagnation of infrastructure versus competition for the importer who still has their own local economy that may or may not already be a monopoly for them.

The US didn’t have a tax on labor for most of its existence. What if we could return to that?


Edit to add: I forgot the best part. The market is now been opened for me to make the cheaper chair for $100. Meaning I still have $30 in material can pay a carpenter $15 and still make $65 a chair. Which means I can afford to throw $20 towards equipment upgrades and a second carpenter if I can get by on $45 and eventually make $90 in the same time the more expensive company makes $150. By continuously upgrading I can equal the more ornate company by volume and giving the consumer a choice by savings and grow the local economy with more employment.

originally posted by: dantanna
whoever is running the country? the inter-nationalists are running the country and the world.
its the bankers/families running the world following protocols created now two centuries ago. (1850s.)
thier insane plot to rule the world is still continuing to this day.

i LOVE tarifs. i hate outscourcing. lets bring back american jobs.

more middle class jobs means less crime, how can anyone not want that???
oh the bad guys do not want that, they want everyone in servitude, like good cattle.

It is interesting to note what Karl Marx thought of Free Trade.
He was a major supporter of it. His predictions are spot on and what is happening today.

Free Trade -> Misery -> Social Revolution

mailstar.net...

Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of a world culture (c) Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state - they will be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their backers in the higher classes.

Libertarians have much in common with Communists.
Communists worship the state, while Libertarians worship Global Corporations.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nwtrucker

The naysayers cite the potential job loss due to those higher prices domestically.

Not just job losses but the rise in cost could prompt a rise in inflation which would lead to interest rate rises that will also hit the consumer , people with less money to spend spend less money so it would also have a knock on effect on the wider economy.

Add that to the reciprocal tariffs imposed by effected countries on American goods and you have a recipe for recession.

I don't think tariffs will cause an increase in prices.
Corporations charge what the market will bare.
It means less profit taking for wall street instead.

Remember it takes 200 dollars including labor to make an iphone and then they turn around and sell it to consumers for 800 dollars. That is all profit and the stocks for it are high.

We need tariffs across the board for all resources and products entering this country.
With corporate globalism, millions lost their jobs or had to retrain in different fields.
We were told we have to get used to it and adapt.
Well, now the tables have been turned on the globalists, time for them to adapt.

originally posted by: luthier
A few unpopular points for trump supporters.

Us steele has increased in profit since 2000. Shares are worth 6 times what they were then. The average salary is $80k. Automation is responsible for job loss not markets. Literally the US steele industry controls 70 percent of the steele market.

Tariff on steele has never worked.

And it affects multiple industries as well as consumers.

seekingalpha.com...

Tariffs do work.
Before Globalism, we had tariffs on everything.
If Tariffs do not work, then how come every other nation out there has them except us?

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nwtrucker

The naysayers cite the potential job loss due to those higher prices domestically.

Not just job losses but the rise in cost could prompt a rise in inflation which would lead to interest rate rises that will also hit the consumer , people with less money to spend spend less money so it would also have a knock on effect on the wider economy.

Add that to the reciprocal tariffs imposed by effected countries on American goods and you have a recipe for recession.

This.

People are happy to celebrate the short term gains without considering wider potential implications.

Economically and militarily is not good for the US to be down to one fulltime aluminum smelter in the entire country.

Cant understand why Mexico and Canada cant take in China steel and make a profit selling it to the US. That is probably going to happen.

Oh and WOW did anyone notice haw fast little rocket man changed his tune?

That won't fly. A few months back, Trump got on Canada's case for dumping gov't subsidized steel in the U.S.. The problem is we need Canada's nearby iron ore which is on the Candian side of the great lakes.

Trump has left the door open for negotiations. A smart move. On the other side of the coin, selling Chinese steel into the U.S. via Canada and Trump will take action. JMO, though.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nwtrucker

The naysayers cite the potential job loss due to those higher prices domestically.

Not just job losses but the rise in cost could prompt a rise in inflation which would lead to interest rate rises that will also hit the consumer , people with less money to spend spend less money so it would also have a knock on effect on the wider economy.

Add that to the reciprocal tariffs imposed by effected countries on American goods and you have a recipe for recession.

This.

People are happy to celebrate the short term gains without considering wider potential implications.

Economically and militarily is not good for the US to be down to one fulltime aluminum smelter in the entire country.

Cant understand why Mexico and Canada cant take in China steel and make a profit selling it to the US. That is probably going to happen.

Oh and WOW did anyone notice haw fast little rocket man changed his tune?

That won't fly. A few months back, Trump got on Canada's case for dumping gov't subsidized steel in the U.S.. The problem is we need Canada's nearby iron ore which is on the Candian side of the great lakes.

Trump has left the door open for negotiations. A smart move. On the other side of the coin, selling Chinese steel into the U.S. via Canada and Trump will take action. JMO, though.

They were "dumping"? Like a tariff is not a form of subsidy? Cant see why Canada wouldn't jack their prices up to take advantage of the tariff.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nwtrucker

The naysayers cite the potential job loss due to those higher prices domestically.

Not just job losses but the rise in cost could prompt a rise in inflation which would lead to interest rate rises that will also hit the consumer , people with less money to spend spend less money so it would also have a knock on effect on the wider economy.

Add that to the reciprocal tariffs imposed by effected countries on American goods and you have a recipe for recession.

This.

People are happy to celebrate the short term gains without considering wider potential implications.

Economically and militarily is not good for the US to be down to one fulltime aluminum smelter in the entire country.

Cant understand why Mexico and Canada cant take in China steel and make a profit selling it to the US. That is probably going to happen.

Oh and WOW did anyone notice haw fast little rocket man changed his tune?

That won't fly. A few months back, Trump got on Canada's case for dumping gov't subsidized steel in the U.S.. The problem is we need Canada's nearby iron ore which is on the Candian side of the great lakes.

Trump has left the door open for negotiations. A smart move. On the other side of the coin, selling Chinese steel into the U.S. via Canada and Trump will take action. JMO, though.

They were "dumping"? Like a tariff is not a form of subsidy? Cant see why Canada wouldn't jack their prices up to take advantage of the tariff.

Hey. No argument from me on that score. The bottom line is if the U.S. is going to save it's base metals industry, we have to act. The action of a tariff is a good counter to dumping....as you cite.

Canada has been given a mulligan on dumping, largely due to iron ore exports to the U.S. for it's steel manufacturing. So why would Canada piss off the U.S.? The tariffs doesn't affect them....unless they push it, that is.

originally posted by: intrptr

Good. Thats how its supposed to work.

Tariffs protect american companies and workers from cheap imports that undermine our economy.

Big step in right direction. (If its not just for show and more tariffs on more industries follow.)

Very true but tariffs work both ways. Not to mention that other nations dont have to buy US steel. If the tariffs harm allies then those allies will go elsewhere.

So, it could be a very good move but equally it could be a double edged sword.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: intrptr

Good. Thats how its supposed to work.

Tariffs protect american companies and workers from cheap imports that undermine our economy.

Big step in right direction. (If its not just for show and more tariffs on more industries follow.)

Very true but tariffs work both ways. Not to mention that other nations dont have to buy US steel. If the tariffs harm allies then those allies will go elsewhere.

So, it could be a very good move but equally it could be a double edged sword.

Let them go elsewhere. We're obviously not exporting much U.S. steel....unless high quality is an issue. This returns U.S. consumption of steel to the U.S..

A two-edged sword is a far better option than no sword, at all.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rickymouse

It is not the cost of the ingredients that is the issue, it is how much money the owners want to make profit.

Making a profit is not a bad thing. In a competitive marketplace, profit works well as a driving force. The issue is the cost of foreign versus the cost of domestic.

Right. Which I think folks are going to be getting a lesson in shortly. I suspect the tariffs are going to lead to inflated domestic prices with ever-rising tariffs over time a la "Let's jack 'em up a little more since buyers will think we're still cheaper than imports, KA-CHING!". A materials racket of sorts.

People would think this kind of trade war is ridiculous if it were their beer or wine, and would not be very supportive of slapping sharply higher tariffs on their preferred drinks. I mean come on, penalizing choices between anything doesn't help anyone on any scale. It breeds backlash. If imported wine was suddenly jacked up from a 5 cents per bottle tariff to a buck, I'd buy exclusively imported out of spite & in support of freedom of choice in goods, not the American stuff. You don't win sales with force, force is how you shoot yourself in the foot.

People probably will see higher prices on their beers & capped wines, to some extent. Folks forget what cans & bottle/screw caps are made of.

Can someone please explain to me exactly what problem this tariff change is supposed to fix?

or....

Is this simply ANOTHER event manufactured to keep us busy shouting US vs THEM while Gov/Big Business continue with the usual shennanigans?

a reply to: nwtrucker

But thats just it, there is much better quality steel on the international market (NOT Chinese).

As a consumer, if the price you are paying for a commodity goes up and you can get superior quality elsewhere cheaper then there is no choice to make is there?

In which case, it is good for the US domestic market but rubbish internationally, which is extremely poor economics if you control 70% of a global market.

Like i say, this could go either way but it certainly doesnt appear to be the most sensible of policies.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: nwtrucker

But thats just it, there is much better quality steel on the international market (NOT Chinese).

As a consumer, if the price you are paying for a commodity goes up and you can get superior quality elsewhere cheaper then there is no choice to make is there?

In which case, it is good for the US domestic market but rubbish internationally, which is extremely poor economics if you control 70% of a global market.

Like i say, this could go either way but it certainly doesnt appear to be the most sensible of policies.

I don't follow your logic. This tariff is largely and obviously directed at China. It is an import tariff. Our export prices aren't going up, per say, either we were already competing in high quality steel markets or we aren't. No real change, that I can see.

a reply to: RadioRobert

The tariffs (or our perceived willingness to use them as a tool) are also useful for helping negotiate better trade agreements. Many of the countries harping at us already have high tariffs aimed specifically at US exports to their country to protect their own industries (look at China and car tariffs and duties).

I would make one change to that... take out the word "perceived." I believe Trump is willing to use them to protect our economy. The whole point is not to add on tariffs, but to incentivize other countries to deal fairly with the US. Trump has stated many times that he does not blame other countries for taking advantage of our open trade policies, but rather he simply believes we should also negotiate in our best interests. So in negotiations concerning trade, it is prudent to take advantage of everything in our economic arsenal. That includes tariffs. Either China allows our automobiles to be sold with lower (or no) tariffs in their country, or we start taxing the steel they sell us to make the automobiles. The same thing with the EU. If you're going to tax Chevrolets and Fords, we're going to tax Mercedes Benz and Jaguars. Fair is fair.

Without the negotiation aspect, we would likely be looking at a trade war. But with negotiation, we're looking at a more open market for American businesses, leading to more and better jobs for Americans. That's what the naysayers don't understand.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would make one change to that... take out the word "perceived." I believe Trump is willing to use them to protect our economy. The whole point is not to add on tariffs, but to incentivize other countries to deal fairly with the US. 

I agree with this. I used the word "perceived" because I don't believe the world's markets at all believed or perceived recent administrations had any actual willingness, no matter what they may have said to their bases. You can't use the carrot/stick as an incentive if noone believes you will use the stick. There must be a perceived threat, not empty words.

When Trump said to NK "Go ahead. Make my day. We'll stand toe to toe and see who's left standing", people in the West lost their #. " oh, my God! He actually means it! He'd do it, that orange menace!". Whether he really would or not is not the point. People "perceived" the threat. Including Kim. That's also why it worked. Noone believed Obama (or W or Bill, etc) was going to go to war with NK over the nuclear program. Least of all Kim. That's why all the empty words and threats had zero effect. Instead we actually rewarded them with Billions of dollars of aid money. Just saying they were the "Axis of Evil" did nothing to change their behaviour or mindset.

It's just like the walk away tactic. It doesn't work as a threat unless people believe you are willing to do it. If George W. Bush said, "If Germany doesn't increase its defense spending to meet the minimum obligations of the signed NATO agreement, I'm willing to walk away from NATO and our obligations", noone would believe it or care. I don't think Trump would have actually followed through either, but he created enough doubt that the threat was still perceived.

To that extent, I think the impression his harshest critics have created about him being unhinged, unstable, unpredictable, etc is actually a strength when he comes to the table.

a reply to: TXRabbit

I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining that above and how it can even open opportunities for new business and business growth of that new business. But using tariffs for strictly protectionism is bad. A good example is Harley Davidson who didn’t improve their motorcycles until the 1980’s to compete with the Japanese bikes. By improvements to their product and a change in marketing to make H-D a brand, they actually petitioned Reagan directly to drop the tariffs on imported bikes. This in turn was used by Reagan to encourage other companies to follow their business model in order to drop tariffs. The 1980’s began the outsourcing to cheaper labor and free trade policies like NAFTA, WTO and TPP.

While isolationism is bad, so is elimination of all protections in unequal economies. The end result being that no one can afford even the imported products as they have no income. Eventually poor ideas surface like wealth redistribution of hoarded wealth. Which was the impetus behind 1933’s gold confiscation by FDR and the Income Tax to pay the interest to the Centralized Banks of The Federal Reserve.

The downside to everything is of course money itself. You won’t give me lumber if you don’t want any of my chairs so we deal in currency that you can trade it for motorcycles or whatever. But if I can’t gain enough currency for my chairs then I can’t buy your lumber. Or if I can buy imported lumber for less than your lumber, you are not buying a motorcycle in either case. Only I am still in business and you have to sell your sawmill at least until the lumberjack can’t buy my chairs. Then we are all sunk, because you have no sawmill, the lumberjack has no axe and I have no tools. Eventually we go to the government for a handout, but he has no cash either because we haven’t paid any taxes since we closed up shop.