hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2452 of 2466 FirstFirst ... 1452195223522402244224492450245124522453245424552462 ... LastLast
Results 49,021 to 49,040 of 49301

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #49021
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    you mean the reforms that are going to be uniformly punishing the labour side of the equation and have all the attempts at addressing loopholes plucked out before it ever goes to voting ?
    Not those either.

    These: Unified EU finance minister, unified EU/Eurozone budget, an institution providing oversight over EU economic policy.

    http://www.dw.com/en/how-frances-emm...-eu/a-43002078
    ah, you mean the attempts at actually turning the euro into a functioning currency!

    nope, not happening, whatever transfers Germany ends up reluctantly agreeing upon aren't going to be big enough to make a difference, and the whole thing is going to be yet another austerity laden "budget discipline" fail-fest that has seen the "unfortunate" end of the eurozone defacto stagnate for what ? ten years now ?
    Your pessimism is really disheartening. For the Euro to eventually work these steps are necessary, which we all know. IMHO the transfers shouldn't be an issue. What we lack are politicians with balls to enact change.
    nevar forget

  2. #49022

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    In the pantheon of fucking stupid things you've posted this is very well near the top

  3. #49023
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    3,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    M8...

  4. #49024

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    10,562
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    In the pantheon of fucking stupid things you've posted this is very well near the top
    whatabout whatabout whatabout to infinity

  5. #49025
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    you mean the reforms that are going to be uniformly punishing the labour side of the equation and have all the attempts at addressing loopholes plucked out before it ever goes to voting ?
    Not those either.

    These: Unified EU finance minister, unified EU/Eurozone budget, an institution providing oversight over EU economic policy.

    http://www.dw.com/en/how-frances-emm...-eu/a-43002078
    ah, you mean the attempts at actually turning the euro into a functioning currency!

    nope, not happening, whatever transfers Germany ends up reluctantly agreeing upon aren't going to be big enough to make a difference, and the whole thing is going to be yet another austerity laden "budget discipline" fail-fest that has seen the "unfortunate" end of the eurozone defacto stagnate for what ? ten years now ?
    Your pessimism is really disheartening. For the Euro to eventually work these steps are necessary, which we all know. IMHO the transfers shouldn't be an issue. What we lack are politicians with balls to enact change.
    but it's justified, none of the central players have changed from the crowd who decided that going full reality denial was a better strategy back in 2012 so why would you expect a different outcome ?

    the union is DOA at this stage, we're just waiting for events to catch up with it and give it the bullet to the brain it deserves, can something be salvaged from the wreckage ? it's possible, but the credibility to do so requires getting rid of the central cast of characters, there can be no reasonable discussion about joint economic reform with Shauble at the table, just like there can be no reasonable discussion of taxation reform with Juncker at the helm, their mere presence taint the proceedings regardless of their intent.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  6. #49026
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    6,981
    https://www.business-standard.com/ar...1100309_1.html

    Donald Trump accuses India of charging 100% tariff, says trade might stop
    With how crazy the headlines are getting I'm expecting one any day now along these lines tbh "Donald Trump Asks Congress for Declaration of War against Canada"

  7. #49027
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, that's the typically black-and-white Trumpist take on tariffs and trade barriers.

    Both the US and the EU/Canada maintain tariffs on certain goods and services. They're just not the same ones for each country. Because all countries trade in different things, and set out to protect their internal markets in others. And they are there often there for good reason, either economic or politic. Whatever the ardent free traders may say.

    Canada, for example, wants to protect it's dairy industry. Which they have regulated heavily to prevent environmentally unsound over-production (which is killing off hundreds of Wisconsin small farmers, BTW). The EU wants to protect it's citizens from the US's antibiotic infused beef, its chlorinated chickens, its genemodified grain, and its contaminated milk, etc. Meanwhile the ardent free traders in the US, on both sides of the aisle, (but especially the GOP in thrall to billionaire industrials like the Koch brothers), have not just slashed regulations domestically (making so many agricultural products unpalatable for the EU/Canada); they have also slashed, unilaterally often, tariffs/trade barriers with the rest of the world. Because it rewards the big players in the US domestic market, at the cost of the bit-players in the same.

    The story remains the same: it is not the rest of the world taking advantage of the US, least of all Canada, or the EU. It is the big players taking advantage of their (monetary) influence in the US to take advantage of the bit-players, and ultimately everyone else in the US. Often, especially in the EU and Canada, tariffs and trade barriers were put into place to protect EU and Canada citizens with being dragged down the same rabbit-hole.

    In the end, if Trump really wanted to do something about the US's trade deficit and those trade barriers and tariffs, he should be concentrating on cleaning up the US itself. But, obviously, that's too difficult for him, and totally unpalatable for the (backers of the) GOP. So instead he just starts (what is all too likely) an illegal tradewar (under WTO rules) by claiming that steel and aluminium is now a national security issue (protip: it isn't).

    The problem is, ofcourse, that (free) trade, trade deficits, tariffs, and trade barriers are a complicated issue. No proper solution will ever fit on the back of a McDonalds napkin. So Trump will never be able to grasp it. And will never get to that solution either. So now we're, again, stuck with a petulant manchild throwing all his toys out of his pram, fucking things up for everyone. I.e., damage limitation, because the US is lead by an absolute moron. Again.

    While you're still here parroting the Fox News agenda, dividing the world into black and white.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  8. #49028
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    you mean the reforms that are going to be uniformly punishing the labour side of the equation and have all the attempts at addressing loopholes plucked out before it ever goes to voting ?
    Not those either.

    These: Unified EU finance minister, unified EU/Eurozone budget, an institution providing oversight over EU economic policy.

    http://www.dw.com/en/how-frances-emm...-eu/a-43002078
    ah, you mean the attempts at actually turning the euro into a functioning currency!

    nope, not happening, whatever transfers Germany ends up reluctantly agreeing upon aren't going to be big enough to make a difference, and the whole thing is going to be yet another austerity laden "budget discipline" fail-fest that has seen the "unfortunate" end of the eurozone defacto stagnate for what ? ten years now ?
    Your pessimism is really disheartening. For the Euro to eventually work these steps are necessary, which we all know. IMHO the transfers shouldn't be an issue. What we lack are politicians with balls to enact change.
    but it's justified, none of the central players have changed from the crowd who decided that going full reality denial was a better strategy back in 2012 so why would you expect a different outcome ?

    the union is DOA at this stage, we're just waiting for events to catch up with it and give it the bullet to the brain it deserves, can something be salvaged from the wreckage ? it's possible, but the credibility to do so requires getting rid of the central cast of characters, there can be no reasonable discussion about joint economic reform with Shauble at the table, just like there can be no reasonable discussion of taxation reform with Juncker at the helm, their mere presence taint the proceedings regardless of their intent.
    Schäuble? He is nowhere near in a position to do anything beyond voicing his opinion. Merkel will be out next election most likely as well.
    nevar forget

  9. #49029
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    you mean the reforms that are going to be uniformly punishing the labour side of the equation and have all the attempts at addressing loopholes plucked out before it ever goes to voting ?
    Not those either.

    These: Unified EU finance minister, unified EU/Eurozone budget, an institution providing oversight over EU economic policy.

    http://www.dw.com/en/how-frances-emm...-eu/a-43002078
    ah, you mean the attempts at actually turning the euro into a functioning currency!

    nope, not happening, whatever transfers Germany ends up reluctantly agreeing upon aren't going to be big enough to make a difference, and the whole thing is going to be yet another austerity laden "budget discipline" fail-fest that has seen the "unfortunate" end of the eurozone defacto stagnate for what ? ten years now ?
    Your pessimism is really disheartening. For the Euro to eventually work these steps are necessary, which we all know. IMHO the transfers shouldn't be an issue. What we lack are politicians with balls to enact change.
    but it's justified, none of the central players have changed from the crowd who decided that going full reality denial was a better strategy back in 2012 so why would you expect a different outcome ?

    the union is DOA at this stage, we're just waiting for events to catch up with it and give it the bullet to the brain it deserves, can something be salvaged from the wreckage ? it's possible, but the credibility to do so requires getting rid of the central cast of characters, there can be no reasonable discussion about joint economic reform with Shauble at the table, just like there can be no reasonable discussion of taxation reform with Juncker at the helm, their mere presence taint the proceedings regardless of their intent.
    Schäuble? He is nowhere near in a position to do anything beyond voicing his opinion. Merkel will be out next election most likely as well.
    oh right, i thought he was still finance minister, apologies joe.

    still doesn't mean i am not going to take a pessimistic outlook, especially considering how Macron's reforms have panned out domestically, a lot of noise about reforms followed by weakening the bargaining position of labour and little else to show for it. the opportunity to actually galvanize public support for joint budgets is well past, and the whole "throw Greece under the bus to minimize the damage to the german-franco financial systems" send a clear message that is hard, if not impossible to undo.

    indeed, almost all the messaging i have seen so far indicates it's another "Stability and Growth Pact" type of clusterfuck that will do little else but strangle economic growth and penalize counter-cyclical spending thus practically enforcing austerity measures, in part by making any transfers contingent on meeting said pact. so you can either strangle your domestic economy for a small transfer, or ignore the pact for a short term boost with a long term penalty, you're fucked either way.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  10. #49030
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,769
    And I stand by it, I would love to see Macron be successful with these specific reforms because they are necessary.

    If you don't have any hope, why bother living?
    nevar forget

  11. #49031
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, that's the typically black-and-white Trumpist take on tariffs and trade barriers.

    Both the US and the EU/Canada maintain tariffs on certain goods and services. They're just not the same ones for each country. Because all countries trade in different things, and set out to protect their internal markets in others. And they are there often there for good reason, either economic or politic. Whatever the ardent free traders may say.

    Canada, for example, wants to protect it's dairy industry. Which they have regulated heavily to prevent environmentally unsound over-production (which is killing off hundreds of Wisconsin small farmers, BTW). The EU wants to protect it's citizens from the US's antibiotic infused beef, its chlorinated chickens, its genemodified grain, and its contaminated milk, etc. Meanwhile the ardent free traders in the US, on both sides of the aisle, (but especially the GOP in thrall to billionaire industrials like the Koch brothers), have not just slashed regulations domestically (making so many agricultural products unpalatable for the EU/Canada); they have also slashed, unilaterally often, tariffs/trade barriers with the rest of the world. Because it rewards the big players in the US domestic market, at the cost of the bit-players in the same.

    The story remains the same: it is not the rest of the world taking advantage of the US, least of all Canada, or the EU. It is the big players taking advantage of their (monetary) influence in the US to take advantage of the bit-players, and ultimately everyone else in the US. Often, especially in the EU and Canada, tariffs and trade barriers were put into place to protect EU and Canada citizens with being dragged down the same rabbit-hole.

    In the end, if Trump really wanted to do something about the US's trade deficit and those trade barriers and tariffs, he should be concentrating on cleaning up the US itself. But, obviously, that's too difficult for him, and totally unpalatable for the (backers of the) GOP. So instead he just starts (what is all too likely) an illegal tradewar (under WTO rules) by claiming that steel and aluminium is now a national security issue (protip: it isn't).

    The problem is, ofcourse, that (free) trade, trade deficits, tariffs, and trade barriers are a complicated issue. No proper solution will ever fit on the back of a McDonalds napkin. So Trump will never be able to grasp it. And will never get to that solution either. So now we're, again, stuck with a petulant manchild throwing all his toys out of his pram, fucking things up for everyone. I.e., damage limitation, because the US is lead by an absolute moron. Again.

    While you're still here parroting the Fox News agenda, dividing the world into black and white.
    Republicans are corporatist free traders, generally. They're anti-tariff. I expect you knew that, and knew that the FOX agenda is more the Republican agenda than the Trump agenda.

    I suggest you give Mark Levin a listen when he discusses Trump and tariffs, fun times.

    Bernie was pro tariff in the last cycle.

    So if Trump wanted to rebuild the U.S. Steel industry, how should he do it?
    Last edited by Alistair; June 11 2018 at 06:03:33 PM.


  12. #49032
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, it's that all trading nations have a complex arrangement of subsidies and tarrifs which (Canada's milk tariff, for instance, is substantially because of the gigantic subsidies poured into US dairy farming which means that the Canadians had to protect their own dairy farmers or lose the entire industry) over the last couple of decades have been very slowly and painstaking reduced (on the whole) through numerous multinational conferences. Even where there is agreement that a given tariff should be reduced, it's often done slowly or after a significant delay in order to soften the negative effects, and agreements are very much on the lines of "OK we'll reduce the tariff on cheese by 1/4 if you keep the tariff on cellphones under 25%" (only infinitely more complex and taking into account subsidies, customs processes, etc etc etc.

    And every now and then, technological change upsets the balance and more work has to be done. In short, this shit is difficult, complex, detailed and requires continual rebalancing. It's a vastly difficult and contentious process made signficantly easier when you're negotiating with countries who have proved that they're good faith actors who understand the issues. There might be tension between the goals, say, the EU and Canada but overall they're willing to work together for mutual gain. Thus the recent trade pact which even then took a decade to work out and get signed off.


    And now Trump has crashed into this delicate and careful process like a spectacularly ignorant wreckingball. The most likely outcome is the partial reversal of those decades of progress as the web of agreements has to be remade with the knowledge that the USA will willingly elect and maintain a semi-senile reflexively dishonest buffoon who gets his ideology and economics from Fox News and Breitbart and his fragile ego.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  13. #49033
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    Starting a trade war with political and economic partners is bad. Canada and EU issuing counter tarrifs in response is a predictable outcome.

    Not sure if you are trolling, if so, ha ha, you got me.
    Not trolling at all, and not referencing "counter tariffs". I'm asking about exisiting tariffs and trade barriers already in place prior to the new steel/aluminium tariffs.


  14. #49034
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    11,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    And I stand by it, I would love to see Macron be successful with these specific reforms because they are necessary.

    If you don't have any hope, why bother living?
    i have plenty of hope, but i refuse to pin it on a organisation that regularly tries to fuck over the very underpinnings of the social models it depends upon.
    the commission tries to curtail the right to strike about once a year, like fucking clockwork and the entire project is very much the epitome of bureaucracy and "professionalism" over democracy and accountability, there have been attempts at addressing this, but the second it means starting to actually making changes in the core infrastructure the whole thing shrivels up and funding goes missing.

    and then there is the way crisis response is handled, it's always a game of who gets to toss the weakest actor involved under the bus.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  15. #49035
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, that's the typically black-and-white Trumpist take on tariffs and trade barriers.

    Both the US and the EU/Canada maintain tariffs on certain goods and services. They're just not the same ones for each country. Because all countries trade in different things, and set out to protect their internal markets in others. And they are there often there for good reason, either economic or politic. Whatever the ardent free traders may say.

    Canada, for example, wants to protect it's dairy industry. Which they have regulated heavily to prevent environmentally unsound over-production (which is killing off hundreds of Wisconsin small farmers, BTW). The EU wants to protect it's citizens from the US's antibiotic infused beef, its chlorinated chickens, its genemodified grain, and its contaminated milk, etc. Meanwhile the ardent free traders in the US, on both sides of the aisle, (but especially the GOP in thrall to billionaire industrials like the Koch brothers), have not just slashed regulations domestically (making so many agricultural products unpalatable for the EU/Canada); they have also slashed, unilaterally often, tariffs/trade barriers with the rest of the world. Because it rewards the big players in the US domestic market, at the cost of the bit-players in the same.

    The story remains the same: it is not the rest of the world taking advantage of the US, least of all Canada, or the EU. It is the big players taking advantage of their (monetary) influence in the US to take advantage of the bit-players, and ultimately everyone else in the US. Often, especially in the EU and Canada, tariffs and trade barriers were put into place to protect EU and Canada citizens with being dragged down the same rabbit-hole.

    In the end, if Trump really wanted to do something about the US's trade deficit and those trade barriers and tariffs, he should be concentrating on cleaning up the US itself. But, obviously, that's too difficult for him, and totally unpalatable for the (backers of the) GOP. So instead he just starts (what is all too likely) an illegal tradewar (under WTO rules) by claiming that steel and aluminium is now a national security issue (protip: it isn't).

    The problem is, ofcourse, that (free) trade, trade deficits, tariffs, and trade barriers are a complicated issue. No proper solution will ever fit on the back of a McDonalds napkin. So Trump will never be able to grasp it. And will never get to that solution either. So now we're, again, stuck with a petulant manchild throwing all his toys out of his pram, fucking things up for everyone. I.e., damage limitation, because the US is lead by an absolute moron. Again.

    While you're still here parroting the Fox News agenda, dividing the world into black and white.
    So if Trump wanted to rebuild the U.S. Steel industry, how should he do it?
    First of all, he should question whether he should. If, shorn of all subsidies and tariffs, imported bulk* steel is cheaper, when why should it be made in the US at all? Isn't forcing US industries which use steel to pay higher prices effectively crippling their profitability?

    *There's a different discussion for specialist alloys
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  16. #49036
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, that's the typically black-and-white Trumpist take on tariffs and trade barriers.

    Both the US and the EU/Canada maintain tariffs on certain goods and services. They're just not the same ones for each country. Because all countries trade in different things, and set out to protect their internal markets in others. And they are there often there for good reason, either economic or politic. Whatever the ardent free traders may say.

    Canada, for example, wants to protect it's dairy industry. Which they have regulated heavily to prevent environmentally unsound over-production (which is killing off hundreds of Wisconsin small farmers, BTW). The EU wants to protect it's citizens from the US's antibiotic infused beef, its chlorinated chickens, its genemodified grain, and its contaminated milk, etc. Meanwhile the ardent free traders in the US, on both sides of the aisle, (but especially the GOP in thrall to billionaire industrials like the Koch brothers), have not just slashed regulations domestically (making so many agricultural products unpalatable for the EU/Canada); they have also slashed, unilaterally often, tariffs/trade barriers with the rest of the world. Because it rewards the big players in the US domestic market, at the cost of the bit-players in the same.

    The story remains the same: it is not the rest of the world taking advantage of the US, least of all Canada, or the EU. It is the big players taking advantage of their (monetary) influence in the US to take advantage of the bit-players, and ultimately everyone else in the US. Often, especially in the EU and Canada, tariffs and trade barriers were put into place to protect EU and Canada citizens with being dragged down the same rabbit-hole.

    In the end, if Trump really wanted to do something about the US's trade deficit and those trade barriers and tariffs, he should be concentrating on cleaning up the US itself. But, obviously, that's too difficult for him, and totally unpalatable for the (backers of the) GOP. So instead he just starts (what is all too likely) an illegal tradewar (under WTO rules) by claiming that steel and aluminium is now a national security issue (protip: it isn't).

    The problem is, ofcourse, that (free) trade, trade deficits, tariffs, and trade barriers are a complicated issue. No proper solution will ever fit on the back of a McDonalds napkin. So Trump will never be able to grasp it. And will never get to that solution either. So now we're, again, stuck with a petulant manchild throwing all his toys out of his pram, fucking things up for everyone. I.e., damage limitation, because the US is lead by an absolute moron. Again.

    While you're still here parroting the Fox News agenda, dividing the world into black and white.
    So if Trump wanted to rebuild the U.S. Steel industry, how should he do it?
    First of all, he should question whether he should. If, shorn of all subsidies and tariffs, imported bulk* steel is cheaper, when why should it be made in the US at all? Isn't forcing US industries which use steel to pay higher prices effectively crippling their profitability?

    *There's a different discussion for specialist alloys
    I would think one argument he might make is National Security.

    The ability of the U.S. to maintain it's military production without requiring massive steel and aluminum imports from anyone.


  17. #49037
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post

    First of all, he should question whether he should. If, shorn of all subsidies and tariffs, imported bulk* steel is cheaper, when why should it be made in the US at all? Isn't forcing US industries which use steel to pay higher prices effectively crippling their profitability?

    *There's a different discussion for specialist alloys
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Canada's milk tariff, for instance, is substantially because of the gigantic subsidies poured into US dairy farming which means that the Canadians had to protect their own dairy farmers or lose the entire industry
    Isn't forcing Canadians to use domestic milk over the cheaper American Milk (paid for by US taxpayers) bad for Canadian consumers? Bad for farmers, but hey, why have a domestic milk industry if you can get it cheaper elsewhere right? Same as why have a US Steel industry if we can get it cheaper right?

    Clearly cost isn't the only concern.


  18. #49038
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, that's the typically black-and-white Trumpist take on tariffs and trade barriers.

    Both the US and the EU/Canada maintain tariffs on certain goods and services. They're just not the same ones for each country. Because all countries trade in different things, and set out to protect their internal markets in others. And they are there often there for good reason, either economic or politic. Whatever the ardent free traders may say.

    Canada, for example, wants to protect it's dairy industry. Which they have regulated heavily to prevent environmentally unsound over-production (which is killing off hundreds of Wisconsin small farmers, BTW). The EU wants to protect it's citizens from the US's antibiotic infused beef, its chlorinated chickens, its genemodified grain, and its contaminated milk, etc. Meanwhile the ardent free traders in the US, on both sides of the aisle, (but especially the GOP in thrall to billionaire industrials like the Koch brothers), have not just slashed regulations domestically (making so many agricultural products unpalatable for the EU/Canada); they have also slashed, unilaterally often, tariffs/trade barriers with the rest of the world. Because it rewards the big players in the US domestic market, at the cost of the bit-players in the same.

    The story remains the same: it is not the rest of the world taking advantage of the US, least of all Canada, or the EU. It is the big players taking advantage of their (monetary) influence in the US to take advantage of the bit-players, and ultimately everyone else in the US. Often, especially in the EU and Canada, tariffs and trade barriers were put into place to protect EU and Canada citizens with being dragged down the same rabbit-hole.

    In the end, if Trump really wanted to do something about the US's trade deficit and those trade barriers and tariffs, he should be concentrating on cleaning up the US itself. But, obviously, that's too difficult for him, and totally unpalatable for the (backers of the) GOP. So instead he just starts (what is all too likely) an illegal tradewar (under WTO rules) by claiming that steel and aluminium is now a national security issue (protip: it isn't).

    The problem is, ofcourse, that (free) trade, trade deficits, tariffs, and trade barriers are a complicated issue. No proper solution will ever fit on the back of a McDonalds napkin. So Trump will never be able to grasp it. And will never get to that solution either. So now we're, again, stuck with a petulant manchild throwing all his toys out of his pram, fucking things up for everyone. I.e., damage limitation, because the US is lead by an absolute moron. Again.

    While you're still here parroting the Fox News agenda, dividing the world into black and white.
    So if Trump wanted to rebuild the U.S. Steel industry, how should he do it?
    First of all, he should question whether he should. If, shorn of all subsidies and tariffs, imported bulk* steel is cheaper, when why should it be made in the US at all? Isn't forcing US industries which use steel to pay higher prices effectively crippling their profitability?

    *There's a different discussion for specialist alloys
    I would think one argument he might make is National Security.

    The ability of the U.S. to maintain it's military production without requiring massive steel and aluminum imports from anyone.
    Canada is a massive national security threat.

    It’s a retarded argument made by a retarded President.

  19. #49039
    Joe Appleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    in front of the class
    Posts
    13,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Appleby View Post
    And I stand by it, I would love to see Macron be successful with these specific reforms because they are necessary.

    If you don't have any hope, why bother living?
    i have plenty of hope, but i refuse to pin it on a organisation that regularly tries to fuck over the very underpinnings of the social models it depends upon.
    the commission tries to curtail the right to strike about once a year, like fucking clockwork and the entire project is very much the epitome of bureaucracy and "professionalism" over democracy and accountability, there have been attempts at addressing this, but the second it means starting to actually making changes in the core infrastructure the whole thing shrivels up and funding goes missing.

    and then there is the way crisis response is handled, it's always a game of who gets to toss the weakest actor involved under the bus.
    Join a party or form a political movement and change it.

    Don't answer with "how can I small Dane do anything?" If you don't try, you will fail. My favorite example is a friend of mine, who out of conviction joined a party and put some effort in it. He ended up being the personal assistant to the minister of justice in his state, and now runs a part of that department, able to change things.

    Fuck, the Austrian chancellor is younger than us (31).

    You have a conviction, why not act upon it?
    nevar forget

  20. #49040
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,821
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    So just curious, the U.S. tariffs/trade barriers are bad, but EU and Canadian tariffs/trade barriers are ok, is that about the gist of it?
    No, that's the typically black-and-white Trumpist take on tariffs and trade barriers.

    Both the US and the EU/Canada maintain tariffs on certain goods and services. They're just not the same ones for each country. Because all countries trade in different things, and set out to protect their internal markets in others. And they are there often there for good reason, either economic or politic. Whatever the ardent free traders may say.

    Canada, for example, wants to protect it's dairy industry. Which they have regulated heavily to prevent environmentally unsound over-production (which is killing off hundreds of Wisconsin small farmers, BTW). The EU wants to protect it's citizens from the US's antibiotic infused beef, its chlorinated chickens, its genemodified grain, and its contaminated milk, etc. Meanwhile the ardent free traders in the US, on both sides of the aisle, (but especially the GOP in thrall to billionaire industrials like the Koch brothers), have not just slashed regulations domestically (making so many agricultural products unpalatable for the EU/Canada); they have also slashed, unilaterally often, tariffs/trade barriers with the rest of the world. Because it rewards the big players in the US domestic market, at the cost of the bit-players in the same.

    The story remains the same: it is not the rest of the world taking advantage of the US, least of all Canada, or the EU. It is the big players taking advantage of their (monetary) influence in the US to take advantage of the bit-players, and ultimately everyone else in the US. Often, especially in the EU and Canada, tariffs and trade barriers were put into place to protect EU and Canada citizens with being dragged down the same rabbit-hole.

    In the end, if Trump really wanted to do something about the US's trade deficit and those trade barriers and tariffs, he should be concentrating on cleaning up the US itself. But, obviously, that's too difficult for him, and totally unpalatable for the (backers of the) GOP. So instead he just starts (what is all too likely) an illegal tradewar (under WTO rules) by claiming that steel and aluminium is now a national security issue (protip: it isn't).

    The problem is, ofcourse, that (free) trade, trade deficits, tariffs, and trade barriers are a complicated issue. No proper solution will ever fit on the back of a McDonalds napkin. So Trump will never be able to grasp it. And will never get to that solution either. So now we're, again, stuck with a petulant manchild throwing all his toys out of his pram, fucking things up for everyone. I.e., damage limitation, because the US is lead by an absolute moron. Again.

    While you're still here parroting the Fox News agenda, dividing the world into black and white.
    So if Trump wanted to rebuild the U.S. Steel industry, how should he do it?
    First of all, he should question whether he should. If, shorn of all subsidies and tariffs, imported bulk* steel is cheaper, when why should it be made in the US at all? Isn't forcing US industries which use steel to pay higher prices effectively crippling their profitability?

    *There's a different discussion for specialist alloys
    I would think one argument he might make is National Security.

    The ability of the U.S. to maintain it's military production without requiring massive steel and aluminum imports from anyone.
    Canada is a massive national security threat.

    It’s a retarded argument made by a retarded President.
    American Steel Towns (and their voters) may not agree with you.

    I presume you think the answer to rusting wasted American towns is to train them all in new high-tech industries, right?

    And never worry ever about imports in case of crisis or war. No one would ever cut off the US...right?


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •