Trump announces protective tariffs on steel and aluminum imports

[Spectral]

You linked an hour long podcast that where the topic at hand is 1 of 3 topics discussed in the podcast. That's basically a "fuck you" to anyone you're having a discussion with. If they have a cogent point, summarize it and post it here.

*shrug*

Some people listen to podcasts. Nothing in my post demands that anyone engage with it. It's an offer - if you like podcasts and you're interested in policy, here's a thing. Acid Baron's "but you're an extremist" response is just feeble and pathetic. My bad for interrupting a circlejerk, I guess.

[Rhamses]

This buffoon is going to destroy the economy. How can anyone be in support of this? It's utterly stupid and idiotic on multiple levels.

[Macaquerie]

*shrug*

Some people listen to podcasts. Nothing in my post demands that anyone engage with it. It's an offer - if you like podcasts and you're interested in policy, here's a thing. Acid Baron's "but you're an extremist" response is just feeble and pathetic. My bad for interrupting a circlejerk, I guess.

Wouldn't it be better just to summarize what the podcast says instead of acting like a self-righteous douchebag?

[Felya]

Some people listen to podcasts. Nothing in my post demands that anyone engage with it. It's an offer - if you like podcasts and you're interested in policy, here's a thing. Acid Baron's "but you're an extremist" response is just feeble and pathetic. My bad for interrupting a circlejerk, I guess.

You could have just posted your opinion on it, instead of having people listen to a pod cast. If people wanted to listen to podcasts, that’s what they’d be doing. The only reason I am posting, other than it’s fun, is I cannot make any noise yet... it’s just after 7. As soon as I can listen to a podcast, I’ll be playing monster hunter instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't it be better just to summarize what the podcast says instead of acting like a self-righteous douchebag?

But, it’s more fun to complain about people listening, than it is to explain it. I’m guessing...

[Themius]

The far right conservative perfectly captures how trump views America . Constant victim complex. We are literally the largest most powerful most wealthy most influential country yet magically now we are all losers who are always losing and we are in bad times?

[Felya]

The far right conservative perfectly captures how trump views America . Constant victim complex. We are literally the largest most powerful most wealthy most influential country yet magically now we are all losers who are always losing and we are in bad times?

It’s bizarre... they are the patriots, who think America is so bad, it needs Trump to make it great again. The same Trump who said America wasn’t innocent of being a killer, because an interviewer asked him how he felt about Putin being a killer. Not only do they believe America is a loser, but that our country is a killer, while proclaiming they are the patriots.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean the US trade imbalance has nothing to do with US products not doing well on world markets. They are doing quite well. It has far more to do with the fact that post war the US social construct was meticulously shaped into the most gluttonous engine of consumption on the planet. Everything is defined by not just wealth but rather ownership. Even your poor are not focused on class inequality but rather on daydreaming about shopping. Of course you need to import like crazy to keep up with the demand.

Even simpler than that... we consume more than we produce. While our pay doesn’t justify the cost at which we produce. So we depend on countries with lower standards of living, to produce cheap enough for us to afford.

[Spectral]

You could have just posted your opinion on it, instead of having people listen to a pod cast. If people wanted to listen to podcasts, that’s what they’d be doing. The only reason I am posting, other than it’s fun, is I cannot make any noise yet... it’s just after 7. As soon as I can listen to a podcast, I’ll be playing monster hunter instead.

Wouldn't it be better just to summarize what the podcast says instead of acting like a self-righteous douchebag?

I genuinely didn't think, "here's a thing from a credible source that you can listen to if you care about the policy" was something that'd be that offensive to people's sensibilities.

No, I don't think I can meaningfully summarize an ~20 minute chunk of discussion in a sentence or two for easy digestion. I think it's a worthwhile listen if people care about what's going on.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This buffoon is going to destroy the economy. How can anyone be in support of this? It's utterly stupid and idiotic on multiple levels.

People have been calling for the status quo to be disrupted for years....

Mostly because they believed that the status quo is what was holding them back from being richer.

Now that the status quo is being disrupted and people are finding out that it's causing them and their (lack of) fortune to be disrupted, the status quo doesn't look so bad.


Maybe the status quo in the US is the status quo because it at least partially works. All of this "America first", trade isolationism, blah blah blah, all of the other bullshit the deplorables have been clamoring for definitely DO NOT work.

[Spectral]

I disagree it is ultimately that simple. There are several countries with higher GDP per capita than the US and many of them are exporters instead of importers.

As near as I can tell, they're all oil or banking countries (GDP/capita PPP Wiki).

An American allocates more of his disposable income to consumption than savings or investment compared to most others living in comparable countries, i.e. where people have significant disposable income. If you replaced all US citizens with Germans or Japanese you'd end up an exporter country to because they simply prefer to save or invest over consuming.

Yeah, this is probably right.

[Macaquerie]

I genuinely didn't think, "here's a thing from a credible source that you can listen to if you care about the policy" was something that'd be that offensive to people's sensibilities.

No, I don't think I can meaningfully summarize an ~20 minute chunk of discussion in a sentence or two for easy digestion. I think it's a worthwhile listen if people care about what's going on.

It's offensive because "go look at this source that can explain the issue so I don't have to" is a common rhetorical tactic and generally indicates that you have no clue what you are talking about. Summarizing complex ideas into understandable talking points is a useful skill that anyone would do well to cultivate, acting like these concepts are so dense that they can't possibly be simplified is a pretty sure sign of someone who's much more interested in looking smart than in having a productive discussion. In fact, Vox is usually pretty good with this kind of stuff, I definitely enjoy their style of trying to explain the news to people with no prior knowledge, rather than just expecting everyone to understand all the references going in, so if you're going to cite them maybe you should follow their lead.

[Macaquerie]

I disagree it is ultimately that simple. There are several countries with higher GDP per capita than the US and many of them are exporters instead of importers. An American allocates more of his disposable income to consumption than savings or investment compared to most others living in comparable countries, i.e. where people have significant disposable income. If you replaced all US citizens with Germans or Japanese you'd end up an exporter country to because they simply prefer to save or invest over consuming.

It's a simple binary choice between spending or saving though, the willingness to save depends on the availability of good investment opportunities, and in order to generate good returns on investment you need consumers who want to spend money on whatever it is you'll be making. Japan is actually a great example of what happens when this breaks down. Once their bubble popped in the early 90s it was pretty much impossible to jump start the economy again because people preferred to squirrel money away rather than spend it, and this led to a long term stagnation which they have yet to recover from and in all likelihood probably never will.

[Jastall]

I genuinely didn't think, "here's a thing from a credible source that you can listen to if you care about the policy" was something that'd be that offensive to people's sensibilities.

No, I don't think I can meaningfully summarize an ~20 minute chunk of discussion in a sentence or two for easy digestion. I think it's a worthwhile listen if people care about what's going on.

Being able to digest long arguments into important points is kind of useful when it comes to discussion. ''Go listen to these people'' not only tells us little of your own positions, it kind of makes you seem intellectually lazy. Can your opinions not stand on their own?

Nobody is saying to summarize it all in one sentence, but surely if you have the time to post several times defending your decision, you have the time to write a few succinct paragraphs explaining why the podcast is important, explaining what it says and why you agree with it. You don't have to make a Skroe-length essay.

[Acidbaron]

People have been calling for the status quo to be disrupted for years....

Mostly because they believed that the status quo is what was holding them back from being richer.

Now that the status quo is being disrupted and people are finding out that it's causing them and their (lack of) fortune to be disrupted, the status quo doesn't look so bad.


Maybe the status quo in the US is the status quo because it at least partially works. All of this "America first", trade isolationism, blah blah blah, all of the other bullshit the deplorables have been clamoring for definitely DO NOT work.

Every nation looks out for their own interest first and foremost, it's why things move so slowly on an EU level and why the TTIP agreement if it is ever going to come is going to take even more years to complete.

"Something something first" is merely a populist motto, but it is easier to throw that to the masses instead of going to look into detail what good things happened with globalism and what bad things happened. I can especially see why people shy away from that topic in the US, since worker rights, unions that work and all that make the sponsors of the political class tremble.

Internationally however Trump seems to be good on uniting people, since even the brits are now siding with the EU and not the US when it comes to a response to these tariffs.

[Acidbaron]

I disagree it is ultimately that simple. There are several countries with higher GDP per capita than the US and many of them are exporters instead of importers. An American allocates more of his disposable income to consumption than savings or investment compared to most others living in comparable countries, i.e. where people have significant disposable income. If you replaced all US citizens with Germans or Japanese you'd end up an exporter country to because they simply prefer to save or invest over consuming.

There is also a difference in mentality i believe, also credit cards and other means to increase your spending where harder to come by here, even before certain market crashes. Not because we are vastly different people but because there are a lot more checks in place on our end and banks can be held accountable when they push you into something you clearly should not have.

As for putting more in savings, perhaps although people here are also shifting from that, mostly because the rates are so low. But instead of consuming more there seems to be more people interested in safe long term investments.

[Kraenen]

Oh man people really spent a few pages complaining that someone linked a podcast? I got a good laugh out of that.

[Breccia]

doesn't this actually have to be voted on?

Probably not, no.

Trump is claiming the need is "national security" and, by doing so, gives himself the ability to act with far fewer restrictions.

The most relevant option appears to be the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Designed to give the President the ability to make an economic strike against foreign governments or overseas threats, Carter used it during the Iran Hostage Crisis, for example. It was further enhanced by the Patriot Act.

Problem is, the IEEPA seems pretty targeted in use, based on its history. It mostly gets used against a specific govt/target, when used worldwide, against specific activities (such as human rights abused). Trump would have to claim, basically, that the whole world is a terrorist organization out to destroy the US.

The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 seems like the second option. Nixon used it, citing the Korean war, in 1971, to slap tariffs on "durable goods" coming into the US.

Problem is, Japan basically sued in 1972, and they won in 1974. Then the IEEPA was created to restrict it even further. So it's less likely Trump will cite this (at least, cite it effectively).

The third option, is granted by the Constitution. It lets the President “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” and Trump has used it already to get out of TPP, and it's what would let him leave NAFTA. Trump could just up and leave the WTO entirely, letting the US avoid their rules entirely.

Of course, the rules of the WTO work both ways. Other countries would be free to just up and raise the tariffs on US goods, for absolutely no reason, as we would no longer be anyone's Most Favored Nation. And, without the WTO, they would not need to use the same shitty "national security" excuse, either. They could just hit whatever assets they wanted, for whatever reason they wanted, and only against us.

Fourth seems to be the Trade Act of 1974. It's low on the list, because it caps at 15% and also 150 days. Yes, it also mandates the need for "national security", but Trump's already cited that. The low tariff value and the short-term duration means Trump will very likely not do this.

Finally, there's Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

"Wait, I thought you cited 232 earlier. So did everyone else."

Well, yes, but I hadn't really read it through. See, Section 232 requires an investigation, and the DoD comes back within 270 days with a report. The last time was in 2001 and yes included iron and steel. The DoD basically said "no, this isn't a threat" and we haven't used it since.

Multiple conflicting laws will likely end with Trump using the law that says "I can do this" to get the tariffs rolling, and the challenge that follows using a different law that says "no, you can't do this" will take some time. Trying to use Section 232 is almost certainly going to bring not just foreign governments, but also both other branches of government, down on Trump, crushing him with a humiliating defeat during mid-term elections.

Anyhow, yes, the legislation in place lets Trump declare such tariffs without a vote in Congress required. But none of them give him 100% carte blanche, and he'll at best damage our trade relations with a knee-jerk reaction that will be challenged, likely undone, in the forseeable future.

- - - Updated - - -

Additional news: Lindsey Graham calls the tariffs "a huge mistake".

That is an exact quote. Wanna see the video?

- - - Updated - - -

Add the Prime Minister of the UK to the list. Brexit or not, this will affect the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

While Wilbur Ross hasn't ruled it out completely, there are no current indications Trump will grant exceptions.

Here's the problem, though:

Peter Navarro, director of the White House National Trade Council, said exempting countries was a slippery slope.

“There will be an exemption procedure for particular cases where we need to have exemptions, so that business can move forward. But at this point in time there will be no country exclusions,” Navarro said, without elaborating.

“If you exempt Canada, then you have to put big, big tariffs on everybody else,” he said on CNN’s“State of the Union” program.

If you want the total effect of the tariffs to be the same, Navarro is correct. Problem is, we import far, far more steel from our allies than, say, China -- the country Trump specifically called out over and over.

Also, granting exceptions to some Most Favored Nations but not others is a clear WTO risk. Trump could get away with Canada, as long as he also includes Mexico, citing NAFTA. That's WTO acceptable, and combined about 25-30% of our imports. As industry after industry continues to say there isn't enough steel at home, Canada and Mexico steel companies could, for example, raise their prices by 10 to 15%, then say "hola amigos, we're still cheaper than anyone else but we get to keep the profits"

The real test will be the unveiling of a specific, written declaration in the coming week. All we've seen so far is "Trump wants to slap a high tariff on everyone and has proven he has no loyalty or friends".

[Spectral]

Also, granting exceptions to some Most Favored Nations but not others is a clear WTO risk. Trump could get away with Canada, as long as he also includes Mexico, citing NAFTA. That's WTO acceptable, and combined about 25-30% of our imports. As industry after industry continues to say there isn't enough steel at home, Canada and Mexico steel companies could, for example, raise their prices by 10 to 15%, then say "hola amigos, we're still cheaper than anyone else but we get to keep the profits"

Worth a mention is that this sort of outcome is likely with domestic production as well. You know what's hard? Implementing a decision to hire new workers, install new infrastructure, and commit to increasing the pipeline of materials coming in for production of steel to meet what one would expect to be an increased demand for domestic steel in response to a 25% tariff that may or may not stay in place for long. You know what's easy? Raising your prices by 15% and reaping a windfall shortrun profit. I'd expect most corporations to take the guaranteed gain over a risky ramp up.

[Elegiac]

If the expectation is that these tariffs won't last, you want to make a short term profit within the window of time that offers you the competitive advantage fully expecting that window to close.

That was his point. If this represented a serious effort at trying to revamp the domestic steel industry then the government would and should be offering incentives for domestic producers to ramp up production over the long term - but considering this tariff is a punitive sop designed to make a certain segment of voters feel good about themselves, it will just represent a short term price increase and resulting supply shock.

As if American infrastructure couldn't get shittier.

[Breccia]

Axios lays out the timeline that led us here.

To summarize:
1) This has been going on for months. The main people arguing for these tariffs are, as we've seen, Ross and Navarro. The main people against this kind of implementation were basically everyone else, but mostly, Porter and Cohn.
2) Porter and Cohn believe they'd made a sound, fact-based case for their side, as well as a strategy to focus Trump on China so he wouldn't ruin the stock market and undo the effects of the tax cut for the rich. We saw Phase One: the solar panels and dishwasher tariffs. Next was supposed to be products based on China's theft of intellectual property. Next would have been metal and finally cars, but Cohn and Porter thought Trump might be appeased by then.
3) This was brought up in a meeting last month. During this meeting, Ross and Navarro provided little evidence to support their decision, and Cohn flat-out called them out. Trump responded by calling Cohn and Porter globalists.
4a) Then Porter got caught beating his wives.
4b) Hope Hicks left.
4c) Sessions met with his colleagues to solidify his support, including publicly meeting in a public restaurant to make sure Trump knew Sessions was tight with his posse.
5) So Trump had a temper tantrum, and lashed out in the only direction he could think of.

[Redwyrm]

Our country is being led by a cat chasing a laser pointer