It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada to hit U.S. with retaliatory tariffs in response to Trump’s steel tariffs

page: 9
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: luthier

Yup. I can see the reasoning Trump employed in this decision. He satisfying his base and trying to lure other voters by attempting to look tough on other countries. Too soon imo. If he did this next year or a year and a half later the fallout would hit the American public after the 2020 election. When people end up paying $1000 more for a car that's going to lower sales. Michigan isn't going to like that. Same with production in states like Ohio and Penn. Those states will swing back to Dem. There won't be a Hillary around to keep liberal and centrist votes away. Or vote Rep.



Wait until it hits the farmers in the mid west.

I want to know do we have high employment or not?

If we have high employment and a robust economy wtf can tye reason of tariffs be?

To limit freedom of choice and reduce competition?
edit on 1-6-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




... This is Obama’s economy, not Trump’s ...


(THUD!!)

Really???????



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Only if you're thinking globally rather than nationally. Let me ask you this, do you recognize that free global trade doesn't work when you have one nation which has very stringent wage rate floors, regulations, and standards trying to compete against another country without wage floors, far few regulations, and low standards?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Willtell




... This is Obama’s economy, not Trump’s ...


(THUD!!)

Really???????







It helps them sleep at night and provides them some hope going into the midterms that they won't get slaughtered in the polls. It isn't much different from many of us saying the Clinton economy was all smoke and mirrors, really.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

Only if you're thinking globally rather than nationally. Let me ask you this, do you recognize that free global trade doesn't work when you have one nation which has very stringent wage rate floors, regulations, and standards trying to compete against another country without wage floors, far few regulations, and low standards?


Yet here we are with high income, a powerhouse economy, and low unemployment.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimmley


Just a question . . . when was the last time the US won a war on anything?

I think it was the Civil War, and only because you were fighting against yourselves.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

Only if you're thinking globally rather than nationally. Let me ask you this, do you recognize that free global trade doesn't work when you have one nation which has very stringent wage rate floors, regulations, and standards trying to compete against another country without wage floors, far few regulations, and low standards?


Yet here we are with high income, a powerhouse economy, and low unemployment.


...and huge trade deficits, high debt, a huge number of people still not participating in the workforce, and a service based economy. Not good.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

Only if you're thinking globally rather than nationally. Let me ask you this, do you recognize that free global trade doesn't work when you have one nation which has very stringent wage rate floors, regulations, and standards trying to compete against another country without wage floors, far few regulations, and low standards?


Yet here we are with high income, a powerhouse economy, and low unemployment.


...and huge trade deficits, high debt, a huge number of people still not participating in the workforce, and a service based economy. Not good.


Trade deficits are a natural pattern for advanced economies who are wealthy enough to consume more goods than traded..

High debt is from spending unrelated to the economy. And a service based economy is far better than manufacturing.

Manufacturing based economies are usually weaker economies.

Protectionism is market intervwntion and taxation. It happens in weak economies with unemployment problems.

We have low unemployment.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

It's spin the bottle foreign policy.
Round and round and round she goes.
Where it stops nobody knows.
Maybe we will and may be we won't.
Who knows. Who knows.
We'll see.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

It's just so much more complicated than that. Remember, it's all a stage, there is always a deeper meaning and Agenda behind all these huge international decisions being made. To think this is simply because Trump wants to do a pissing contest is extremely foolish, he is much smarter than the image he gives the MSM.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The greatest middle class, with the highest purchasing power in history was formed in the USA during the manufacturing boom of the mid 20th Century. I disagree with your opinions on the science of economics. History doesn't support your positions.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

The political network backed by billionaires Charles and David Koch isn’t happy about the steel and aluminum tariffs proposed by President Donald Trump and is mobilizing grass-roots activists in 36 states against them.

“The tariffs are, in many ways, crony capitalism,” James Davis, the network’s top spokesman, told reporters and editors Thursday at Bloomberg’s Washington bureau. “It’s supporting a few jobs, potentially, at the expense of many.”



FRIEDMAN: There's a big hue and cry about the steel industry, and about imposing higher tariffs or import quotas on steel. Now, every [economist] in this country ought to be on the right side of that issue, which is a free trade issue. If Japan chooses to subsidize the export of clean air to the United States, why should we object? Isn't that what it's doing when it sends steel here? Here, we have this great hue and cry that we should somehow or other subsidize steel, either by tariffs or quotas or other ways, to enable steel to produce both its products and its pollution at home...



The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas or other protectionist restraints is to forget about political boundaries.

Political boundaries of nations may be important for other reasons, but they have no economic meaning whatever. Suppose, for example, that each state of the United States were a separate nation. Then we would hear a lot of protectionist bellyaching that we are now fortunately spared. Think of the howls by inefficient, high,priced New York or Rhode Island textile manufacturers who would then be complaining about the "unfair," "cheap labor" competition from various low,type "foreigners" from Tennessee or North Carolina, or vice versa. Fortunately, the absurdity of worrying about the balance of payments is made evident by focusing on interstate trade. For nobody worries about the balance of payments between New York and New Jersey, or, for that matter, between Manhattan and Brooklyn, because there are no customs officials recording such trade and such balances.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Tempter


Well said. Another example was the threatened Chinese soy tariff. If US soy sales drop internationally, other soy producers, increase their exports now at a higher price due to a lower world-wide supply. If that creates a shortage in their nation due to increased and more profitable exports, they import U.S. soy at the same price that we would have charged China. In fact they could buy our soy and then sell it to China at the higher world price.

All the while, as you say, US domestic prices drop.

Imported goods from China will go up in price, though. No getting around that one...unless we use the tariffs earned to subsidize the more expensive imported goods(?)


My lord you are clueless on this. Intervention means prices will go up everywhere.

Anyone who uses metal which is why literally nobody is for this but Donald trump and the people he has brain washed.

Trump is great at pointing out a problem and then making a moronic solution that is I'll conceived and an cultural pr stunt.

Can you explain how domestic prices will drop? Are employers going to pay less for labor and supply lines? Nope. The exact opposite.


Are you one of these people who think raising min wages all at once also increases wages?

Let me explain this simple concept. American wages are higher than almost anywhere in the world. This increases the cost of goods. Tariffs raise the prices of supply lines. This increases the cost of goods.

Using up our national resources for a problem that doesn't exist (in the way it's being addressed) is beyond stupid.

Guess what happens if wages go up? Prices increase. Guess what happens when raw material goes up prices increase.

The very people who support this ideological trade war are the ones who will suffer. While the plant owners will not. This is literally a making the 1 percent richer and the poor poorer strategy.


I tire of your diatribe. I looks to me it's you who are clueless. Yet, I know better than that based on your other posts on different subjects. Therefore it can only be agenda driven. Be it personal or political.

Obviously, a reduction of supply increase prices. Yet that reduction is only in the direction of those particular tariffs. You must understand that. Yes?

That supply hasn't gone away, merely and arbitrarily overpriced in one or another nation. That,, PER FORCE, creates a surplus of those same goods in other markets. Be it domestically or merely nations outside the tariff loop. Increased supply lowers prices. Unarguable, yes?

Between Canada and the U.S. that doesn't hold true as much as say a China-U.S. spat would. That trading partnership is far more natural and even between Canada and the U.S., frankly, than the China-U.S. issue is.

There would be price increase, at least indirectly, as most of the trade is resource based or base metals and the like. But not like an immediate price increase on the finished products that China exports to the U.S.. Both steel and aluminum costs are a partial component in the manufacturing process and that increase in cost can be covered to a large degree as it's only one component in the manufacturing process. Yes, more in some than others, obviously.

NAFTA has to go. Period. Apparently, Canada benefits from NAFTA more than I realized, otherwise, the negotiations would be farther along than they are.

Canada has made their own mess by relying on a resource based economy and failing to further develop secondary and tertiary industry. Oil prices crashed, their bread and butter, and any advantage NAFTA gives them, especially back in Ontario and Quebec, must be hung onto at all costs.

Sorry, Canada, but you screwed up.

Trump vs Trudeau? A businessman vs a dilettante? No contest.



Trump inherited his fortune and is a celebrity PR man. His business didn't do well until he stopped running them.

Could you find some examples from industry leaders and economists who think trade wars are positive?

They are taxation and hurt tell poor the most.


Trump inherited his fortune is a flat out lie and you know. One million isn't multi-billions.

As far as industry leaders and economists goes. I will take each one at a time. Industry leaders first. These guys are leaders due to taking advantage of the current economic situation. It matters not one whit how the U.S., as a nation, does as long as they get their stock options and maintain their positions.

Changing the system and the hopefully only short term downsides messes with their predictions and return potential. Of course they don't want 'changes' to what already has been hugely profitable to them. So a pox on Industry leaders opinions.

Economists. LMAO. These are the people who, with their pedantic advice have added to the nation's woes. Ivory towered, pie in the sky, morons who couldn't run a newspaper stand. "if you can't do it. Teach it. If you can't teach it. Teach the teachers."
edit on 1-6-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

The greatest middle class, with the highest purchasing power in history was formed in the USA during the manufacturing boom of the mid 20th Century. I disagree with your opinions on the science of economics. History doesn't support your positions.


Totally untrue and science of economics is totally on my side.

The great depression was made far worse by tariffs.

The manufacturing boom is not the litmus test of economics. Apparently you don't understand inflation and it's causes.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The same Kochs who put millions of dollars behind RINOs like McCain and who are fighting against immigration standards? o4anews.com...

Eff 'em, they're wolves in the barnyard.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

The greatest middle class, with the highest purchasing power in history was formed in the USA during the manufacturing boom of the mid 20th Century. I disagree with your opinions on the science of economics. History doesn't support your positions.


Totally untrue and science of economics is totally on my side.

The great depression was made far worse by tariffs.

The manufacturing boom is not the litmus test of economics. Apparently you don't understand inflation and it's causes.



Let me know when you actually have something to say that's backed by actual facts and not an agenda driven opinion, please. I'm tired of spinning the tires on nonsense.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Tempter


Well said. Another example was the threatened Chinese soy tariff. If US soy sales drop internationally, other soy producers, increase their exports now at a higher price due to a lower world-wide supply. If that creates a shortage in their nation due to increased and more profitable exports, they import U.S. soy at the same price that we would have charged China. In fact they could buy our soy and then sell it to China at the higher world price.

All the while, as you say, US domestic prices drop.

Imported goods from China will go up in price, though. No getting around that one...unless we use the tariffs earned to subsidize the more expensive imported goods(?)


My lord you are clueless on this. Intervention means prices will go up everywhere.

Anyone who uses metal which is why literally nobody is for this but Donald trump and the people he has brain washed.

Trump is great at pointing out a problem and then making a moronic solution that is I'll conceived and an cultural pr stunt.

Can you explain how domestic prices will drop? Are employers going to pay less for labor and supply lines? Nope. The exact opposite.


Are you one of these people who think raising min wages all at once also increases wages?

Let me explain this simple concept. American wages are higher than almost anywhere in the world. This increases the cost of goods. Tariffs raise the prices of supply lines. This increases the cost of goods.

Using up our national resources for a problem that doesn't exist (in the way it's being addressed) is beyond stupid.

Guess what happens if wages go up? Prices increase. Guess what happens when raw material goes up prices increase.

The very people who support this ideological trade war are the ones who will suffer. While the plant owners will not. This is literally a making the 1 percent richer and the poor poorer strategy.


I tire of your diatribe. I looks to me it's you who are clueless. Yet, I know better than that based on your other posts on different subjects. Therefore it can only be agenda driven. Be it personal or political.

Obviously, a reduction of supply increase prices. Yet that reduction is only in the direction of those particular tariffs. You must understand that. Yes?

That supply hasn't gone away, merely and arbitrarily overpriced in one or another nation. That,, PER FORCE, creates a surplus of those same goods in other markets. Be it domestically or merely nations outside the tariff loop. Increased supply lowers prices. Unarguable, yes?

Between Canada and the U.S. that doesn't hold true as much as say a China-U.S. spat would. That trading partnership is far more natural and even between Canada and the U.S., frankly, than the China-U.S. issue is.

There would be price increase, at least indirectly, as most of the trade is resource based or base metals and the like. But not like an immediate price increase on the finished products that China exports to the U.S.. Both steel and aluminum costs are a partial component in the manufacturing process and that increase in cost can be covered to a large degree as it's only one component in the manufacturing process. Yes, more in some than others, obviously.

NAFTA has to go. Period. Apparently, Canada benefits from NAFTA more than I realized, otherwise, the negotiations would be farther along than they are.

Canada has made their own mess by relying on a resource based economy and failing to further develop secondary and tertiary industry. Oil prices crashed, their bread and butter, and any advantage NAFTA gives them, especially back in Ontario and Quebec, must be hung onto at all costs.

Sorry, Canada, but you screwed up.

Trump vs Trudeau? A businessman vs a dilettante? No contest.



Trump inherited his fortune and is a celebrity PR man. His business didn't do well until he stopped running them.

Could you find some examples from industry leaders and economists who think trade wars are positive?

They are taxation and hurt tell poor the most.


Trump inherited his fortune is a flat out lie and you know. One million isn't multi-billions.

As far as industry leaders and economists goes. I will take each one at a time. Industry leaders first. These guys are leaders due to taking advantage of the current economic situation. It matters not one whit how the U.S., as a nation, does as long as they get their stock options and maintain their positions.

Changing the system and the hopefully only short term downsides messes with their predictions and return potential. Of course they don't want 'changes' to what already has been hugely profitable to them. So a pox on Industry leaders opinions.

Economists. LMAO. These are the people who, with their pedantic advice have added to the nation's woes. Ivory towered, pie in the sky, morons who couldn't run a newspaper stand. "if you can't do it. Teach it. If you can't teach it. Teach the teachers."


Trump was born into money and literally ran his businesses into the ground. When his father died he became a billionaire. His father was the businessman.


Enjoy the Kool aide. It's going to get a lot more expensive he he doesn't back down.

Period. Just look at the great depression.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

The greatest middle class, with the highest purchasing power in history was formed in the USA during the manufacturing boom of the mid 20th Century. I disagree with your opinions on the science of economics. History doesn't support your positions.


Totally untrue and science of economics is totally on my side.

The great depression was made far worse by tariffs.

The manufacturing boom is not the litmus test of economics. Apparently you don't understand inflation and it's causes.



Let me know when you actually have something to say that's backed by actual facts and not an agenda driven opinion, please. I'm tired of spinning the tires on nonsense.


Same at you. You have provided zero facts and are counter to every economist of any school. Tariffs are protectionism. They interfere with the economy. They are government intervention. They are taxes. The increase cost and lower competition.

What was telling national debt in 1950? What was the dollar backed by? What tariffs helped the great depression? What was spending like in the government in 1950? What is kenesian economic theory?

Which countries other than communist China are a robust economy with a manufacturing base?

Which countries have the lowest trade imbalance? Which have the highest?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

The greatest middle class, with the highest purchasing power in history was formed in the USA during the manufacturing boom of the mid 20th Century. I disagree with your opinions on the science of economics. History doesn't support your positions.


Luhier's posts strikes of sheer desperation. The points made in rebuttal are obvious, yet he clings to his mantra. This Canada-U.S. issue will work out rather quickly.

The last time I can recall a significant spat between the U.S. and Canada was a personal dislike between JFK and Diefenbaker. Just before the Canadian election, I believe, '61 or 62', (the Canadian Dollar was traditionally about 10% or more stronger than the U.S. Dollar). The U.S. made a move that devalued the Canadian Dollar to about 92 cents to the U.S. Dollar.

A fake, 'dDefenbaker Dollar was printed and distributed around Canada called the 'Diefenbaker Buck'. It showed 0.92 cents as it's denomination.

Diefenbaker lost that election........



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: luthier

The same Kochs who put millions of dollars behind RINOs like McCain and who are fighting against immigration standards? o4anews.com...

Eff 'em, they're wolves in the barnyard.


Yeah those guys. The same guys who own manufacturing and Steele factories.

Trump is as ignorant as a ham sandwich on immigration and any sane person knows this.

We need secure boarder, temporary visas for labor voids, and a pathway for the people to come out of the shadows who are productive workers, property owners, and business owners. The biggest way to do that is to start jailing employers and making temporary visas.

Not a wall. The cheaters are the employers trump is ignoring.

Enjoy your tribalism. I am for free trade and a free market. I am for low taxes and limited government interaction in the market.




top topics



 
24
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join