President Trump

I'm wary of a meeting between the two "leaders" without intercession by Dennis Rodman!

This was a BBC thing:

That's the key word. I think it just might be fresh in your memory. If you read through both Bush and Clinton executive orders and try to figure out exactly what was going on in the Senate at the time, you would probably reach the same conclusion for all of them.

__________________
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy

They can borrow my copy.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

I'm saying if the costs outweigh the benefits. I mean if you deign to trade with someone who's causing you trouble, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me to raise your prices to cover the cost of inconveniencing you.

Those arguments have never made sense to me.

Only the last two?

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

What do you think the benefits are?

This is difficult to respond to unless words like "trouble" and "inconveniencing" are converted into something more specific, but I'm not sure how a tariff would "cover the cost" of anything. There is no tariff that harms a foreign seller that does not simultaneously harm a domestic buyer.

If someone wants to argue that tariffs can be used to apply diplomatic pressure, or something, fair enough, but that's a non-economic argument.

Costs: Pauperizing the car and construction industry + unleashing a trade war, all on the backs of the American consumers.

Benefits: Artificially protecting a waning Midwest industry.

It's a classic example of how electoral opportunism causes bad policies.


The only argument I'd buy is that the purpose is to make other countries lower their import tarrifs. That's usually not how other countries react on this kind of sanctions, though. They're not stupid.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

The Preisdency has usurped power since its inception, but its been far worse in a post 9/11 world under the guise of national sercurity. I can think of nothing that describes Obama's legacy better than as a Nobel Peace Prize winner saying "I'm really good at killing people" (with drones) while reflecting on his Presidency.

Does anyone here know a good source that shows how large the import tariffs on steel are in the EU/China/Japan/Australia/etc.? Trump keeps saying that he wants equal treatment, but I can't find the actual numbers. I'd like to see if he has a point.

Sorry to interrupt the epic PT debate to the death, but Threads is going to released on Netflix in April.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Well they could be anything. You might be talking about a country that you do a fair amount of trade with, but causes an overwhelming illegal immigration problem.

Or you might hold a big stake in the economy of another nation, but that nation just so happens to indulge is profound human rights abuses. You could hang their economy over their head.


Oh, sure, it must necessarily come at the cost of being able to do frictionless business with the other country, but if the other country is causing you more significant problems, like say if you need to pressure them into a war-averting treaty for example...

Well that's basically what I'm saying.

Those are highly specific consequences for a very non-specific attitude towards tariffs.

It exacerbated things, no doubt, but I believe the biggest problems with the US go much further back.

Those are the consequences of the tariffs on steel Trump is imposing, so I'm not sure what you mean with "non-specific attitude towards tariffs".

Okay, we're on the same page then. I'm pretty skeptical that this works with any reliability (at all?) in practice, for several reasons, but it theoretically could. Though the benefits are theoretical and nebulous and the costs are tangible and inevitable. To my mind, that's usually a bad spot to be in.

Anyway, it's not being done (or supported) for the nebulous promise of diplomatic leverage, but simply because of economic myopia/ignorance.

By complete coincidence that same reporter retweeted this, heh:

OMG, QUICK! Hide the Omni!

Tariffs work as war promoting measure. War itself is extreme case of tariffs becoming no trade at all.

In other words: higher tariffs make war more likely and lower tariffs make war less likely.

Warring countries tend to have self sufficient economies as opposed to free trade economies.

Punishing a country with tariffs makes war more likely.

Yup. There's an old joke about how "no two countries with a McDonald's have ever gone to war."

This is off topic, but that pic is kind of messing with me. It appears that the T was designed specifically for a mirror-selfie post, in that the text is readable through the reflection. So to the average Joe walking the street, the text would be reversed where most wouldn't get it. If that's true, then the commentary isn't for broad public display, but for very specific social media post types.

Iderno. There may be some unintentional layered social commentary there as well. I'm not mocking, just it got my attention and has me curious now of where that goes.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear