Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: kers on July 17, 2018, 07:04:47 am
-
While the US is building all kinds of walls and borders, Japan and the EU choose a different direction signing a free trade deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44857317
-
While the US is building all kinds of walls and borders, Japan and the EU choose a different direction signing a free trade deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44857317
One only needs to look at the Trump economic team to see why this is happening.
-
Trump probably just misspoke - he probably meant to say "won't" build a wall instead of "will".
-
It is pretty simple really. If you put up barriers to a country trading with you then there 200 other countries that will gladly fill the void.
-
"
Average global tariffs are near record lows. EU products currently face an average tariff of 1.6% when they arrive in Japan, while Japanese products face tariffs of 2.9% in the European Union, according to the World Trade Organization."
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/17/news/economy/eu-japan-trade-deal/index.html
The EU hits American cars with a 10% tariff. So naturally Japan signed the deal. If the EU wants the same deal with America, Trump would sign it.
-
"
Average global tariffs are near record lows. EU products currently face an average tariff of 1.6% when they arrive in Japan, while Japanese products face tariffs of 2.9% in the European Union, according to the World Trade Organization."
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/17/news/economy/eu-japan-trade-deal/index.html
The EU hits American cars with a 10% tariff. So naturally Japan signed the deal. If the EU wants the same deal with America, Trump would sign it.
It’s really about wherher you want your grand kids to live in an open world where opportunities are created by the reduction of state control in key areas or whether you think that you are big enough to close yourself from the rest.
I was under the impression that Republicans were fundamentally in favor of freedom?
It would appear that European “socialists” are closer to that ideal.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It’s really about wherher you want your grand kids to live in an open world where opportunities are created by the reduction of state control in key areas or whether you think that you are big enough to close yourself from the rest.
I was under the impression that Republicans were fundamentally in favor of freedom?
It would appear that European “socialists” are closer to that ideal.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Cheers,
Bernard
Those Republicans are long gone and most are Independents these days having left the party.
-
It’s really about wherher you want your grand kids to live in an open world where opportunities are created by the reduction of state control in key areas or whether you think that you are big enough to close yourself from the rest.
I was under the impression that Republicans were fundamentally in favor of freedom?
It would appear that European “socialists” are closer to that ideal.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Cheers,
Bernard
Let me see if I understand you correctly. So Australians and Europeans and other foreigners fly to NYC in the USA to visit B and H Photo to buy all their Japanese camera equipment for 40% less than they have to pay in their own countries due to their tariffs and VATs and other charges because unlike these other countries America keeps its tariffs on Japanese cameras low. Then they sneak that equipment back into their own countries to avoid paying their own countries' confiscatory duties. And you accuse America of not wanting to reduce state control and closing ourselves off from the world and giving up our freedoms.
That's tortured logic.
Regarding our new tariffs, that's an opening gambit for future negotiations to get rid of all tariffs on both sides or at least reduce them to what Japan and the EU just agreed on. In case you haven't heard, Trump wants to get rid of all tariffs.
-
Regarding our new tariffs, that's an opening gambit for future negotiations to get rid of all tariffs on both sides or at least reduce them to what Japan and the EU just agreed on. In case you haven't heard, Trump wants to get rid of all tariffs.
I haven't heard. What I have heard is Trump raising tariffs all over the place.
Those are hard facts. Your view that this is a negotiation tactics is an hypothesis at best.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let me see if I understand you correctly. So Australians and Europeans and other foreigners fly to NYC in the USA to visit B and H Photo to buy all their Japanese camera equipment for 40% less than they have to pay in their own countries due to their tariffs and VATs and other charges because unlike these other countries America keeps its tariffs on Japanese cameras low. Then they sneak that equipment back into their own countries to avoid paying their own countries' confiscatory duties. And you accuse America of not wanting to reduce state control and closing ourselves off from the world and giving up our freedoms.
No. B&H has a competitive advantage because of the volumes they sell (meaning they get better prices from the vendors in the first place), and lower overheads. They've very effective at what they do. Local (Australia) suppliers have lower volumes and higher overheads, but you do get local service and support more easily. Even paying Australian taxes (there are no tarrifs for importing the camera gear), and freight, and exchange rate, it's often (but not always) cheaper to purchase through B&H so long as it's a higher value item (lower value items the shipping kills it). That's a totally legit, 100% legal, taxes paid transaction. That has nothing to do with the US having lower tariffs or taxes than Australia (it doesn't). It has to do with comemrcial volumes.
Your entire premise of the rest of your comment is equally wrong.
-
No. B&H has a competitive advantage because of the volumes they sell (meaning they get better prices from the vendors in the first place), and lower overheads. They've very effective at what they do. Local (Australia) suppliers have lower volumes and higher overheads, but you do get local service and support more easily. Even paying Australian taxes (there are no tarrifs for importing the camera gear), and freight, and exchange rate, it's often (but not always) cheaper to purchase through B&H so long as it's a higher value item (lower value items the shipping kills it). That's a totally legit, 100% legal, taxes paid transaction. That has nothing to do with the US having lower tariffs or taxes than Australia (it doesn't). It has to do with comemrcial volumes.
Your entire premise of the rest of your comment is equally wrong.
Correct in theory but in practice the situation is more complex.
Camera companies drop prices in some countries to increase market share or to offload excess stock. Retail shops run specials to compete, and raise prices on items where there is little competition.
Here in New Zealand you would expect prices in a suburban camera store to be a lot higher than at B&H. Also, we pay 15% GST.
I looked up the Fuji X-H1 and after currency conversion a local store was actually a little cheaper than B&H, and a little dearer for a 5D MkIV. Not that much in it.
Go in with a nice smile and cash to save them the credit card fee and prices may drop further.
Not that this proves anything in particular, because nowadays stuff breaks down so easily I'll pay an extra 20% just so I have a bricks and mortar shop to return the goods to.
-
There are always exceptions, but by and large, most of the time, the reason B&H is cheaper is as I said. I, like you, also often favour a local store for support and service and for lower value items freight more than eats away any advantage.
The point is that it has nothing to do with tariffs in such cases.
-
It’s really about wherher you want your grand kids to live in an open world where opportunities are created by the reduction of state control in key areas or whether you think that you are big enough to close yourself from the rest.
I was under the impression that Republicans were fundamentally in favor of freedom?
It would appear that European “socialists” are closer to that ideal.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Cheers,
Bernard
This is backwards logic.
I have been paying attention to this for a while now, and although I am against these tariffs, the EU in almost every situation has higher tariffs then we, at least prior to this recent unpleasantness. So in effect, it is you that are closing yourself off from the world and engaging in a stronger practice of nationalism.
So I have to ask, what kind of world do you want your kids to live in?
-
It appears a Nikon 850D is 10% more expensive in Australia than at B and H in NYC from Amazon Prime. For whatever reasons. Maybe tariffs are more of a problem in the EU.
In any case, I was curious and looked up a Nikon D850 in Amazon.au and got this.
https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/offer-listing/B077QD6TXR/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1532441620&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+d850&condition=new (https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/offer-listing/B077QD6TXR/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1532441620&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+d850&condition=new)
Here's B and H cost lower. a US dollar equal 1.35 Australian dollars currently.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1351688-REG/nikon_d850_dslr_camera_body.html (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1351688-REG/nikon_d850_dslr_camera_body.html)
Who is Brexit.HUB? They say they're new. I wonder if British companies are setting up new distribution in preparation for Brexit. OK, Maybe this belongs in the other thread.
-
So I have to ask, what kind of world do you want your kids to live in?
One where they can choose between a good public healthcare insurance or a good private healthcare insurance for less than $100/month, although they have to pay more for a Nikon D850.
Regards
-
One where they can choose between a good public healthcare insurance or a good private healthcare insurance for less than $100/month, although they have to pay more for a Nikon D850.
Regards
Kind of off topic here, don't you think? However ...
Would that choice include giving those who don't want government health coverage a voucher for the full amount of what they paid in taxes for the coverage back to be used in getting private coverage? And, if they find cheaper coverage, then that they were taxed for to cover the government's, they get to keep the difference?
Because without this, it's not really a choice like you are asserting.
-
Would that choice include giving those who don't want government health coverage a voucher for the full amount of what they paid in taxes for the coverage back to be used in getting private coverage? And, if they find cheaper coverage, then that they were taxed for to cover the government's, they get to keep the difference?
Because without this, it's not really a choice like you are asserting.
If you work for an employer who provides health insurance you also don't get a choice. You get what the employer is offering and are bound by that policy and all the various co=pays.
-
If you work for an employer who provides health insurance you also don't get a choice. You get what the employer is offering and are bound by that policy and all the various co=pays.
Well you do have the choice to change employers, or not take the job offer based upon the benefits. So, yes, you do have a choice.
Two additional things. First, I have never heard of anyone having a job offer withheld based upon that person asking about the benefits. So, in fact, if that person is smart enough to ask about benefits when the offer was given, they are making a concerted choice with what they want in terms of healthcare. If they are good enough at what they do, I have even heard of negotiating the offer based upon the benefits. If we had universal health, there would be no choice, aside from emigrating out of the country.
Second ... I forgot the second thing while writing the first. ???
-
If you work for an employer who provides health insurance you also don't get a choice. You get what the employer is offering and are bound by that policy and all the various co=pays.
Thinking about this more, I am fairly certain that if someone was truly good at what they do, maybe even just good, during an employment negotiation they could ask not to be covered and have the amount the company would have paid given back to him/her so he/she can get his/her own coverage.
From a business perspective, you would of course have to weigh all of the possibilities first, such as knowing bulk buys (like group policies) are often cheaper then individual polices, but one could make this happen.
Insofar as the employer's point of view, I doubt any smart business person would blink at this request.
-
Thinking about this more, I am fairly certain that if someone was truly good at what they do, maybe even just good, during an employment negotiation they could ask not to be covered and have the amount the company would have paid given back to him/her so he/she can get his/her own coverage.
From a business perspective, you would of course have to weigh all of the possibilities first, such as knowing bulk buys (like group policies) are often cheaper then individual polices, but one could make this happen.
Insofar as the employer's point of view, I doubt any smart business person would blink at this request.
Your scenario 'might' work at a small business but it's doubtful that it would work at any large employer with a centralized HR department. I my daughter's school district that is run by the county offers only one health insurance plan and the HR department is difficult to deal with on some issues.
-
Your scenario 'might' work at a small business but it's doubtful that it would work at any large employer with a centralized HR department. I my daughter's school district that is run by the county offers only one health insurance plan and the HR department is difficult to deal with on some issues.
As a former teacher, I can tell you it is not uncommon for teachers to change districts over benefits, especially before tenure is awarded. More difficult to change countries.
-
Thinking about this more, I am fairly certain that if someone was truly good at what they do, maybe even just good, during an employment negotiation they could ask not to be covered and have the amount the company would have paid given back to him/her so he/she can get his/her own coverage.
From a business perspective, you would of course have to weigh all of the possibilities first, such as knowing bulk buys (like group policies) are often cheaper then individual polices, but one could make this happen.
Insofar as the employer's point of view, I doubt any smart business person would blink at this request.
+1. You could waive health coverage offered by the employer and negotiate higher salary.
-
Would that choice include giving those who don't want government health coverage a voucher for the full amount of what they paid in taxes for the coverage back to be used in getting private coverage? And, if they find cheaper coverage, then that they were taxed for to cover the government's, they get to keep the difference?
No way, it is not the way things work here. Firstly because most people having a private health insurance also use public coverage at choice and convenience (this is my case for instance). Secondly because the system works thanks to the interrelation between public and private services; they are no competition but work together. Without private insurance the public healthcare system would be crowded or much more expensive to maintain. Without a strong public service taking care of non profitable diseases, private insurances would never cost less than $100/month (which is what they cost here). If I need a blood test I just call my preferred doctor from my private insurance and get it in a week. If I get leukemia I would probably choose a long term treatment from the public services because they have better infrastructure for serious diseases.
Regards
-
Your scenario 'might' work at a small business but it's doubtful that it would work at any large employer with a centralized HR department. I my daughter's school district that is run by the county offers only one health insurance plan and the HR department is difficult to deal with on some issues.
In the old days when most companies included health care as part of the pay package, you couldn;t waive it. The insurance companies required it. Today though, health care is hugely in flux. So most places and insurance companies have a lot of leeway to structure it efficiently for both employer and employee. Counties and other government entities can be more limited than private. So you daughter's options were limited. But that goes with the turf.
However, when I worked for NYC government, I had a huge choice of health insurance companies to pick from with high and low coverages and costs that was deducted from my pay. I was also able to waive Social Security deductions, which I did. I took the 6.2% money and put in a 457K (similar to 401k) retirement account.
-
No way, it is not the way things work here. Firstly because most people having a private health insurance also use public coverage at choice and convenience (this is my case for instance). Secondly because the system works thanks to the interrelation between public and private services; they are no competition but work together. Without private insurance the public healthcare system would be crowded or much more expensive to maintain. Without a strong public service taking care of non profitable diseases, private insurances would never cost less than $100/month (which is what they cost here). If I need a blood test I just call my preferred doctor from my private insurance and get it in a week. If I get leukemia I would probably choose a long term treatment from the public services because they have better infrastructure for serious diseases.
Regards
I'm not sure how Obamacare works since I'm retired. I'm am on Medicare which is national government insurance for people over 65 years old. The problem right now is the better doctors are starting to not accept Medicare. They want to be paid higher fees and Medicare pays much lower fees only. If I decide to use these doctors, I would have to pay their very expensive fees directly out of pocket. If I decide to get my own private insurance, it would cost many times more than $100 a month.
-
This is backwards logic.
I have been paying attention to this for a while now, and although I am against these tariffs, the EU in almost every situation has higher tariffs then we, at least prior to this recent unpleasantness. So in effect, it is you that are closing yourself off from the world and engaging in a stronger practice of nationalism.
So I have to ask, what kind of world do you want your kids to live in?
Joe,
With all due respect, do you know this topic well?
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su07_Dullien.pdf
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Joe,
With all due respect, do you know this topic well?
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su07_Dullien.pdf
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't have time to read the whole thing but just skimmed it, and it seems to be about base economic & policy differences, not specifics on tariffs?
If you have a problem with tariffs, lets talk tariffs, lets talk specifics.
From a German Think Tank, Trump may have a point about EU tariffs, ifo says (https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/trump-may-point-eu-tariffs-ifo-says-899083)
“The EU is by no means the paradise for free traders that it likes to think,” said Gabriel Felbermayr, director of the ifo Center for International Economics, a division of the Munich-based ifo Institute. The European Union actually comes off as the bigger offender when compared to the US, he added. The unweighted average EU customs duty is 5.2 percent, versus the US rate of 3.5 percent, according to ifo’s database.
(Side note, I would prefer to see the weighted average.)
-
I am not interested in just tariffs, my question was clearly much broader and so was the question you threw back at me.
The reality today is that Europe is currently finding ways to be at the same time more free market driven and social than the US.
This should be an interesting input in a debate where the focus is Trump’s alignment with traditional Republican values while throwing populist lies towards the less favored part of the population.
This may hopefully help unconver the real meaning of “America first”.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, sorry I assumed you well talking about tariffs in a thread that was started about tariffs, especially since you did not clarify your response dealt with a broader subject.
We can all throw around talking points about who is more free market, but where does the analysis actually lie? Show me real numbers and proof that Europe is being more free market please. Show me numbers, show me data.
-
Joe,
With all due respect, do you know this topic well?
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su07_Dullien.pdf
Cheers,
Bernard
FYI, this paper was written in the Summer of 2007, over ten years ago. It's a little outdated don't you think?
-
FYI, this paper was written in the Summer of 2007, over ten years ago. It's a little outdated don't you think?
Hi Joe,
No, I don’t think it is outdated.
The trends described have further progressed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Joe,
No, I don’t think it is outdated.
The trends described have further progressed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Unfortunately, this is primarily dependent on who is in office at the time. True, the Republicans, much to my dismay, were not deficit hawks with Bush, and they are not with Trump. More likely due to them not being able to get something passed at the moment, and riding high on the economy during Bush. But with Obama they were more on the hawkish side. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with free markets, which you brought up.
Your claim about Europe being more free market then the USA is just a claim without evidence. Show me numbers, show me real data. You have not produced any, however I have shown a non-biased source that in fact Europe is more protectionist then the USA with tariffs and duties.
-
Unfortunately, this is primarily dependent on who is in office at the time. True, the Republicans, much to my dismay, were not deficit hawks with Bush, and they are not with Trump. More likely due to them not being able to get something passed at the moment, and riding high on the economy during Bush. But with Obama they were more on the hawkish side. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with free markets, which you brought up.
Your claim about Europe being more free market then the USA is just a claim without evidence. Show me numbers, show me real data. You have not produced any, however I have shown a non-biased source that in fact Europe is more protectionist then the USA with tariffs and duties.
Of course Europeans, Chinese and American Trump haters say Trump started the tariff war. That's nonsense. As you posted, tariffs in all these countries have always been higher there than in America. We're just starting to fight back. I can understand China and Europe blaming Trump. They have a lot to lose if tariff are equalized or removed. But it's disgusting to listen to Americans who put others nations before their own country.
-
Unfortunately, this is primarily dependent on who is in office at the time. True, the Republicans, much to my dismay, were not deficit hawks with Bush, and they are not with Trump. More likely due to them not being able to get something passed at the moment, and riding high on the economy during Bush. But with Obama they were more on the hawkish side.
Slightly off topic, but if we are talking about budget deficits, the general rule is not that Republicans are against deficits, but rather that whatever party is currently out of power is against deficits.
-
Slightly off topic, but if we are talking about budget deficits, the general rule is not that Republicans are against deficits, but rather that whatever party is currently out of power is against deficits.
Exactly, and its quite disgusting.
-
Slightly off topic, but if we are talking about budget deficits, the general rule is not that Republicans are against deficits, but rather that whatever party is currently out of power is against deficits.
I think that's true. There is a slight difference though. Republicans know deficits are bad but do them anyway. Democrats do them with delight.
-
Republicans know deficits are bad but do them anyway. Democrats do them with delight.
By the end of his two terms Clinton was generating budget surpluses which was worrisome to then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan (a Republican appointee).
-
By the end of his two terms Clinton was generating budget surpluses which was worrisome to then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan (a Republican appointee).
Wizard Greenspan practically caused the 2008 crisis single-handedly. Instead of allowing the 2001 recession caused by the collapse of the dot com stocks under Clinton to play out and correct the economy naturally, he overstimulated the economy by printing and lowering interest rates. That created the housing debt bubble that blew up, causing a world-wide recession and getting Obama elected. He still denies he did anything wrong.
-
Wizard Greenspan practically caused the 2008 crisis single-handedly. Instead of allowing the 2001 recession caused by the collapse of the dot com stocks under Clinton to play out and correct the economy naturally, he overstimulated the economy by printing and lowering interest rates. That created the housing debt bubble that blew up, causing a world-wide recession and getting Obama elected. He still denies he did anything wrong.
There's a great Milton Freedman clip where he talks about the Fed and how the Fed just never does anything wrong. It is always outside forces that cause any problems and the Fed hold no blame, and should actually be congratulated for keeping the ship from sinking further.
Of course, this is all according to the Fed, which everyone naturally believes.
-
There's a great Milton Freedman clip where he talks about the Fed and how the Fed just never does anything wrong. It is always outside forces that cause any problems and the Fed hold no blame, and should actually be congratulated for keeping the ship from sinking further.
Of course, this is all according to the Fed, which everyone naturally believes.
When the US economy was humming right before the 2008 recession, people couldn't compliment Milton Greenspan quick enough. You'd think he was Joseph, Vizier of Egypt. Once the economy collapsed, everyone was asking, "Milton? Milton who?"
-
When the US economy was humming right before the 2008 recession, people couldn't compliment Milton Greenspan quick enough. You'd think he was Joseph, Vizier of Egypt. Once the economy collapsed, everyone was asking, "Milton? Milton who?"
Alan Greenspan????
Milton Friedman????
-
Alan Greenspan? ???
Milton Friedman? ???
Oops. Sorry.
"Alan who?"
-
Oops. Sorry.
"Alan who?"
Trumpian slip.
-
A friend sent me this Twitter thread, https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/1022131837257363456 (https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/1022131837257363456), made me wonder how many people feel like this that we never hear about.
-
Good commentary by Stonekettle.
-
A friend sent me this Twitter thread, https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/1022131837257363456 (https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/status/1022131837257363456), made me wonder how many people feel like this that we never hear about.
Robert: Real trade negotiations have started with the EU due to Trump's tariffs. That will put pressure on China to do the same. Good thing this guy isn't on the American trade negotiation side.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/trump-relents-on-eu-car-tariffs-as-u-s-china-fight-derails-qualcomm-deal-idUSKBN1KF1C3
-
Robert: Real trade negotiations have started with the EU due to Trump's tariffs. That will put pressure on China to do the same. Good thing this guy isn't on the American trade negotiation side.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/trump-relents-on-eu-car-tariffs-as-u-s-china-fight-derails-qualcomm-deal-idUSKBN1KF1C3
Real trade negotiations go on behind the scenes all the time and have been doing so since before we were born. Did you not read Manoli's recent post above? Do you just ignore everything that sheds a different light on things and pretend it doesn't exist?
-
Real trade negotiations go on behind the scenes all the time and have been doing so since before we were born. Did you not read Manoli's recent post above? Do you just ignore everything that sheds a different light on things and pretend it doesn't exist?
What Manoli post? I can't find it. In any case, there were no meaningful negotiations going on until Trump applied tariffs. That's why Juncker came to the US yesterday and met with our trade negotiators.
-
What Manoli post? I can't find it. In any case, there were no meaningful negotiations going on until Trump applied tariffs. That's why Juncker came to the US yesterday and met with our trade negotiators.
Trump's actions damaged the US and also damaged Europe. Junker showed up to try to limit that damage to Europe. You tell me which is the more mature approach.
-
Cautionary story (https://www.econlib.org/ignorance-is-bliss-for-the-eu/) about the EU/US trade 'agreement.' Summner is no raging liberal but a libertarian economist. No pay wall to read this brief article.
-
What Manoli post? I can't find it. In any case, there were no meaningful negotiations going on until Trump applied tariffs. That's why Juncker came to the US yesterday and met with our trade negotiators.
Great, you also fell for Juncker's smokescreen.
In reality, the USA started a Tradewar with China. China responded with targeted countermeasures (aiming at products that are produced by Trump electorate). As a result, amongst others, Soybeans are now purchased by the Chinese in South America and the market price of North American Soybeans has dropped.
So using that knowledge as a crowbar to prevent further Tarifs on European produced goods (and countermeasures which ultimately only will cost everybody more), Junker saw an opportunity to get cheaper soybeans, avert further Tarif increases, and make progress on another longtime wish, reduce the dependence on Russian NLG and buy some USA produced gas to increase the chance that Trump would bite. Hook, line, and sinker, as far as any deal with Trump means anything (ask the Iranians and the South Koreans).
Cheers,
Bart
-
In reality, the USA started a Tradewar with China. China responded with targeted countermeasures (aiming at products that are produced by Trump electorate).
Hog (pork) exports to China have collapsed to near zero along with US prices of that commodity. I'm glad I am not a farmer.
-
Trump's actions damaged the US and also damaged Europe. Junker showed up to try to limit that damage to Europe. You tell me which is the more mature approach.
It's got nothing to do with maturity. Europe, China and others and large American corporations beholden to themselves have rolled-over weak American leadership for years. Trump is trying to level the playing field, a difficult thing to do this late in the game. Both Junker and Trump are big boys who know how to play the game. In any case, trying to shame Trump won't work because he has no shame. Just to let you know in case you haven't realized that yet. :)
-
Hog (pork) exports to China have collapsed to near zero along with US prices of that commodity. I'm glad I am not a farmer.
Why do you think tariffs only hurt America? They also are hurting China. So XI is under pressure just as much as Trump is too settle. If tariffs were only hurting America, Junker wouldn't be here offering to negotiate a better deal. Europe is just as terrified of tariffs. The German car manufacturers haven't been this fearful since they were discovered cheating on diesel emissions. Be brave. Take the long view. Lower tariffs will be good for everyone.
-
Cautionary story (https://www.econlib.org/ignorance-is-bliss-for-the-eu/) about the EU/US trade 'agreement.' Summner is no raging liberal but a libertarian economist. No pay wall to read this brief article.
Who has time to read another article? Summarize it like you did the other earlier one. Thanks.
-
Great, you also fell for Juncker's smokescreen.
In reality, the USA started a Tradewar with China. China responded with targeted countermeasures (aiming at products that are produced by Trump electorate). As a result, amongst others, Soybeans are now purchased by the Chinese in South America and the market price of North American Soybeans has dropped.
So using that knowledge as a crowbar to prevent further Tarifs on European produced goods (and countermeasures which ultimately only will cost everybody more), Junker saw an opportunity to get cheaper soybeans, avert further Tarif increases, and make progress on another longtime wish, reduce the dependence on Russian NLG and buy some USA produced gas to increase the chance that Trump would bite. Hook, line, and sinker, as far as any deal with Trump means anything (ask the Iranians and the South Koreans).
Cheers,
Bart
If it's only a smoke screen, and Europe isn't serious, Trump will go back to the mats. Of course, getting closer to the midterms puts us in a disadvantage. We'll see what happens. The EU made a deal with Japan recently. The tariffs were very reasonable. I don't see why an arrangement can't be made between the EU and America. Then we both can go after China who's the main problem for everyone.
-
Hog (pork) exports to China have collapsed to near zero along with US prices of that commodity. I'm glad I am not a farmer.
Trump trade war: U.S. stock market is faring better than China's since dispute began
"...The Standard & Poor's 500, a stock index filled with America's biggest companies that get more than 43 percent of their revenues from overseas sales, is up 6.5 percent this year through Wednesday's close. China's Shanghai composite is down more than 12 percent over the same period, and major stock indexes in Japan and Europe are down a little less than 1 percent...
...U.S. is negotiating from position of strength. The tariff dispute comes at a time when the U.S. economy is performing extremely well, Warne says. And that enables President Trump to negotiate a better deal from a position of strength...
...Wall Street pros still believe the president's use of tariffs as a negotiating tool will likely be a winner...
...If Trump wins concessions from China or the European Union, it could prove bullish for stocks as trade terms improve for U.S. companies...
"...Right or wrong, many investors still feel the U.S. has the upper hand in this battle, and will win in the end," says Randy Frederick, vice president of trading and derivatives at the Schwab Center for Financial Research...
...And although tariffs could cause prices for consumer products ranging from cars to washing machines to rise, "the U.S. does not need China as much as China needs the U.S.," says Barry Bannister, head of institutional equity strategy at Stifel."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/07/26/stock-market-says-u-s-winning-trade-war/832596002/
-
But if the Chinese economy takes a hit the Chinese people won’t be voting anyone or any party out of power. However in America...........
A weakening economy in America is of far more consequence than a weakening economy in China. Anyway let’s hope Trump is not screwing it up and this all turns out to be an effective bargaining position. At the moment it feels like we are all tip toeing through a mine field.
-
Negotiations with the EU are underway. Let's hope China, Canada and Mexico follow.
-
If it's only a smoke screen, and Europe isn't serious, Trump will go back to the mats.
Stuff like Soybeans is traded on an international free market. At this moment the USA produced Soybeans are relatively cheap because there is no Chinese demand anymore, so prices drop with a lack of demand. So, European companies are willing to buy in the USA. It has little to do with the meeting with Juncker, although Trump thinks he has a deal. We are not suddenly going to use more Soybeans, we just buy where they are cheap.
The EU made a deal with Japan recently. The tariffs were very reasonable. I don't see why an arrangement can't be made between the EU and America.
We had an agreement, and a new one was in the making , the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)).
But with an unreliable trading partner as the USA, there's no sense in making contracts like that. Add a Brexit, and nobody is going to gamble their own money on an uncertain future.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart, I don't understand your point. Is the EU and Junker going to negotiate in good faith or not?
-
Bart, I don't understand your point. Is the EU and Junker going to negotiate in good faith or not?
Is Trump?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Is Trump?
Cheers,
Bart
Yes. Trump will. But you didn't answer the same question I asked about your side. If Junker is just playing Trump as you said, that means he's not serious about making a deal. Just stalling for time. So, please answer my question. Is the EU going to negotiate in good faith on a timely basis?
-
Yes. Trump will. But you didn't answer the same question I asked about your side. If Junker is just playing Trump as you said, that means he's not serious about making a deal. Just stalling for time. So, please answer my question. Is the EU going to negotiate in good faith on a timely basis?
Alan,
I have difficulty with using the words 'good faith' and 'Trump' in the same line. Besides the obvious reason that Trump just as easily breaks deals as he 'makes' them (think Paris Acord, Iran), but it also has little to do with faith. Forging International Trade Deals is a job for experienced grown-ups.
Another reason that makes it difficult to make a deal with the USA is that one of the principles of the EU is that they only make deals with signatories of the Paris Agreements. Another complicating factor (and I know Trump hates things that cannot be put in one single page with pictures) is that the EU, or rather the EFTA (which is not the same, but they work in parallel), operates on a global market of supply and demand, and with an exchange of know-how on safety and environmental impact.
It is also not a guarantee that individual companies (and they don't follow orders from the EFTA, but freely operate within the boundaries given), will buy from a given supplier/country. So, as an example, they will buy Soybeans in the USA when they are cheaper there, and they will buy them in South America when the prices are better there. As long as things like food safety and environmental impact are protected.
Another example that shows how naive the rhetoric from the USA is, is in import tariffs on Metals. Now there is a recent tariff of 25 % on Metals from Europe entering the USA. This should give US producers a better competitive edge. But some metal parts can e.g. only be produced in the EU, because the US manufacturers do not wish to spend 5-10 years on research for a product that already is available and is meeting their needs (and the price used to be fair, before the new tariffs). So now, it's the US producers without an alternative local source, that are forced to buy at an artificially raised price, and either lower their profitability or let the consumers pay for the artificial cost. What's worse, the prices for European metals were not damaging the US economy, but the tariffs are used by Trump to bully the rest of the world into accepting his demands. That's not how deals with reciprocal benefits are made.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alan,
I have difficulty with using the words 'good faith' and 'Trump' in the same line. Besides the obvious reason that Trump just as easily breaks deals as he 'makes' them (think Paris Acord, Iran), but it also has little to do with faith. Forging International Trade Deals is a job for experienced grown-ups.
Another reason that makes it difficult to make a deal with the USA is that one of the principles of the EU is that they only make deals with signatories of the Paris Agreements. Another complicating factor (and I know Trump hates things that cannot be put in one single page with pictures) is that the EU, or rather the EFTA (which is not the same, but they work in parallel), operates on a global market of supply and demand, and with an exchange of know-how on safety and environmental impact.
It is also not a guarantee that individual companies (and they don't follow orders from the EFTA, but freely operate within the boundaries given), will buy from a given supplier/country. So, as an example, they will buy Soybeans in the USA when they are cheaper there, and they will buy them in South America when the prices are better there. As long as things like food safety and environmental impact are protected.
Another example that shows how naive the rhetoric from the USA is, is in import tariffs on Metals. Now there is a recent tariff of 25 % on Metals from Europe entering the USA. This should give US producers a better competitive edge. But some metal parts can e.g. only be produced in the EU, because the US manufacturers do not wish to spend 5-10 years on research for a product that already is available and is meeting their needs (and the price used to be fair, before the new tariffs). So now, it's the US producers without an alternative local source, that are forced to buy at an artificially raised price, and either lower their profitability or let the consumers pay for the artificial cost. What's worse, the prices for European metals were not damaging the US economy, but the tariffs are used by Trump to bully the rest of the world into accepting his demands. That's not how deals with reciprocal benefits are made.
Cheers,
Bart
So your answer is "No", Junker is not operating in good faith. If true, Trump will apply a 20% tariff on German cars.
-
So your answer is "No", Junker is not operating in good faith. If true, Trump will apply a 20% tariff on German cars.
If you say so.
What goes around comes around, so the reaction depends on what Trump actually does. So far European 'rebalancing' measures have been relatively mild (unless your livelihood depends on producing and selling bourbon, Levi's jeans, or Harleys, to name a few).
Here's the full list of products affected by the 'rebalancing':
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/may/tradoc_156909.pdf
Nobody gains, and consumers pay the price.
BTW, German cars fall under the same regime as French cars, or those made in the UK, or Italy, or other European countries. So the 'rebalancing' will be proportional. Given the volume of imports of European and Chinese goods, things are going to get expensive in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you say so.
What goes around comes around, so the reaction depends on what Trump actually does. So far European 'rebalancing' measures have been relatively mild (unless your livelihood depends on producing and selling bourbon, Levi's jeans, or Harleys, to name a few).
Here's the full list of products affected by the 'rebalancing':
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/may/tradoc_156909.pdf (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/may/tradoc_156909.pdf)
Nobody gains, and consumers pay the price.
BTW, German cars fall under the same regime as French cars, or those made in the UK, or Italy, or other European countries. So the 'rebalancing' will be proportional. Given the volume of imports of European and Chinese goods, things are going to get expensive in the USA.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I only asked if Junker intended to negotiate in good faith. Your response was an insult about my president and giving me every excuse why Junker shouldn't negotiate in good faith. I sure hope Junker isn't thinking like you are. I doubt if he is. Otherwise, there will never be a deal. If he's only stalling to wait for let's say the American midterms to put pressure on Trump, that would be a mistake. He'll slap a 20% tariff on EU cars the day before the elections just to make a point. He's not afraid.
Regarding the economic and trade issues you mention as an impediment to a deal, that's why there are negotiations. They have to work out the details. Obviously there will have to be compromise on both sides. This isn't the first deal Trump or Junker have ever done, I'm sure.
-
Anyone who is not afraid is dangerous. Being afraid is normal which Trump isn't.
-
Anyone who is not afraid is dangerous. Being afraid is normal which Trump isn't.
If Trump is afraid to put a 20% tariff on German cars, then the negotiations are over before they start. No one wants to negotiate from a position of weakness.
In any case, I think Bart is wrong. Junker came to the US to negotiate a deal. I don't think he's going to play games. Sure, he'll negotiate the best deal you can get for the EU. That's normal. But I don't think he's gaming Trump not to negotiate a deal at all. That would be very foolish on Europe's part.
-
i think Junker came to the US so that Trump could show the appearance of winning. Important for Trump's politics and ego, for sure. But an accomplishment ? ... maybe only a baby step back to where negotiations stopped before. So we can restart the process and Trump can move on to the next episode of "Deal".
-
If Trump is afraid to put a 20% tariff on German cars, then the negotiations are over before they start. No one wants to negotiate from a position of weakness.
In any case, I think Bart is wrong. Junker came to the US to negotiate a deal. I don't think he's going to play games. Sure, he'll negotiate the best deal you can get for the EU. That's normal. But I don't think he's gaming Trump not to negotiate a deal at all. That would be very foolish on Europe's part.
Ever come across the concept of pyrrhic victories?
Stamper is right: a guy without fear is a guy to fear. But then, I don't think Mr T is without fear: I think he's full of it, and to the level of paranoia.
But then, living in a dream protects one, right until the moment that bloody alarm rings for real.
Rob
-
When someone is a one man band then there are no checks and balances in place. Pence looks like a nodding dog. Bolton is to the right of Trump Where the **** is the democracy?
-
Ever come across the concept of pyrrhic victories?
Stamper is right: a guy without fear is a guy to fear. But then, I don't think Mr T is without fear: I think he's full of it, and to the level of paranoia.
But then, living in a dream protects one, right until the moment that bloody alarm rings for real.
Rob
The real Mr. T is without fear
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/mr-t.jpg?quality=95&w=650&h=400)
-
The real Mr. T is without fear
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/mr-t.jpg?quality=95&w=650&h=400)
You know, Trump even looks like him except for the hands.
-
You know, Trump even looks like him except for the hands.
I think that Trump wore a lot of gold jewelry in the 1970s when he was a disco king.
-
i think Junker came to the US so that Trump could show the appearance of winning. Important for Trump's politics and ego, for sure. But an accomplishment ? ... maybe only a baby step back to where negotiations stopped before. So we can restart the process and Trump can move on to the next episode of "Deal".
Politics is theatre. And all leaders are egotists. You have to be one to want to be the bigshot. So Trump feted Xi and Abe in Maralago, and cozied up to Putin and Kim. And Junker offered to buy all the soybeans. It's a fine gesture that Trump responded to. So now they'll negotiate. Trump wanted to start from a position of strength by already having applied some tariffs rather than from weakness like Obama did. As an American I'd rather have Trump the dealmaker than Obama. In any case, it was Trump's' methods that got Junker here just like he was able to start a conversation with Kim. Obama couldn't anything going in NK.
Let's be hopeful. A good settlement where both sides win is a benefit to everyone. Then both sides can combine and face off the Chinese who are the main problem.