free trade deal between the EU and Japan

[kers]

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

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

[Farmer]

Trump probably just misspoke - he probably meant to say "won't" build a wall instead of "will".

[BobShaw]

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.

[Alan Klein]

"
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.

[BernardLanguillier]

"
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

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

[Alan Klein]

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.   

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Farmer]

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.

[David Sutton]

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.

[Farmer]

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.

[JoeKitchen]

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? 

[Alan Klein]

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

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

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. 

[Guillermo Luijk]

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

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.

[JoeKitchen]

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.   

[JoeKitchen]

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. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

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.