The E.U. economy is much weaker than the U.S. economy, and China does all kinds of crazy things to keep the masses busy.
PeakTrader
According to the charts, it looks like the U.S. wanting to maintain a steel and aluminum industry, from predatory pricing, has caused an international response on many other U.S. products.
pgl
There is no predatory pricing and the US steel sector can survive foreign competition if it tries. Of course PeakIdiot has zero faith in the ability of Americans to run companies without Trumpian-Putin style intervention.
PeakTrader
Pgl, entire industries have already been offshored to other countries. Hello?
You’ve been watching too much CNN.
pgl
Predatory pricing and locating facilities overseas are two different topics. C’mon PeakyBoo – we know you are a Russian bot but Lord – couldn’t Putin train his pet parrot not to write such economic gibberish?
Incidentally – there are still a lot of steel production in the US. You ignored my point about your distrust in Americans doing good work. Ever heard of AK Steel? They export to Europe. Since they are a publicly traded company – you could look at their 10-K filing at http://www.sec.gov.
But judging from the serial illiteracy you routinely display here – you’d never understand what it says.
PeakTrader
Pgl, I cited data before, which you decided to ignore. Much U.S. steel production has already been offshored. China produces half of the world’s steel, dumps its steel to third countries, and those countries export to the U.S. at lower prices. Consequently, the U.S. global share of steel production fell from 12% in 2000 to 5% in 2017. Hello?
PeakTrader
Barron’s – June 23, 2018
“So far, the tariffs that have been announced have been tit-for-tat…The Trump administration is also considering imposing penalties on an additional $200 billion of Chinese products. China can respond to that with more tariffs, but would find itself rapidly running out of goods to tax, given that it imported only $130 billion from the U.S. in 2017.
China has other measures it could use, but many of them could prove to be self-defeating. It could, if it wanted, offset the tariffs by causing its currency to drop by 6% to 10%…but that would probably cause investors to abandon China’s financial markets. It could try to dump its U.S. Treasury holdings, but…if it tried to sell them all at once, it might find no buyers at all. And urging Chinese consumers to boycott U.S. products—something that the government did in 2012 with Japanese goods—would hurt Chinese workers, since Apple, Procter & Gamble, and Caterpillar manufacture most of their goods for China’s markets locally, while McDonald’s owns just 20% of its Chinese business.
That won’t stop Beijing pursuing retaliation…But the effectiveness of such retaliation will be limited, and the costs high. China does have one advantage. Because President Xi Jinping doesn’t need to worry about elections, he doesn’t have to worry about getting thrown out of office if tariffs cause consumers pain.”
2slugbaits
PeakTrader China does have one advantage. Because President Xi Jinping doesn’t need to worry about elections,
Well, that’s kind of a big advantage. But China also has a lot of other asymmetric levers. For example, it didn’t get a lot of notice, but this past week China started cozying up with Iran, which would effectively neuter Trump’s decision to quit the Iran nuclear deal. China also made it plain that it’s willing to walk away from its previous support of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against NK. And Pakistan needs a friend. The point is that trade wars have a way of expanding beyond simply trade.
pgl
Judging from the totally off point PeakyStupidity rants off – I suspect this is yet another topic he totally fails to comprehend. But does that stop him from babbling on? Of course not.
CoRev
The fear mongers at it again/still! 2slugs: “The point is that trade wars have a way of expanding beyond simply trade.” Or not depending on outcome on ongoing negotiations.
Pgl: te funniest comment of all: “Judging from the totally off point PeakyStupidity rants off – I suspect this is yet another topic he totally fails to comprehend. But does that stop him from babbling on? Of course not.” Blaming Peaktrader for a Barrons article, and calling the article/Peaktrader off point for an article titled: The Trade War to Date
Or Baffled response: “peak, its not as if you dear leader is cozying up to the dictator in russia, an enemy of the free world. he would never do that. or cozying up to the dear leader in korea. this was a pretty stupid point on your part peaky.”
If not fear mongering their ranting. If this had been an Obama tactic the comments would have been how close to world peace we approaching under Obama’s astute leadership. It’s hilarious watching their spinning heads. 😉
One day they may even mention the Jobs Report, but I don’t expect to see any of that until after the mid-terms.
baffling
“One day they may even mention the Jobs Report, but I don’t expect to see any of that until after the mid-terms.”
you mean the jobs report that comes from the second longest recovery in history? you know, the recovery that obama created and trump has surfed on the past year? if was interesting, all you critters found reasons to degrade the obama jobs reports. even your dear leader called them a lie. then all of a sudden, you are touting them as truth? i for one am happy that the jobs report continues to support the long, strong recovery that was created by obama. i just hope trump doesn’t screw up the recovery.
CoRev
Baffled, how soon you forget. Most complaints were that Obama’s/the democrat recovery was too little and too slow costing millions of jobless economic injury. Trump has shown the truth of those claims, and that’s why you try so hard to ignore or denigrate Trump’s record setting improvements.
baffling
corev, calculated risk has a nice expose on economic performance. according to the metrics of kudlow, mnuchin and cohn, the obama policies have been superior to trump. and you quote “recovery was too little and too slow ” is quite simply false, except for statements by partisan hacks. obama took unemployment way down and created millions of jobs. second longest recovery on record, only exceeded by that other democrat-clinton. something both had in common? they had to fix an economy which was broken by the previous republican administration. simply the facts here corev.
PeakTrader
2slugbaits, are you surprised Communist China would cozy up with dictators and enemies of the free world? It’s nothing new.
pgl
“are you surprised Communist China would cozy up with dictators and enemies of the free world?”
They are cozying up with Trump who certainly is THE enemy of the free world. Lord have mercy – you finally made a point!!!!
baffling
peak, its not as if you dear leader is cozying up to the dictator in russia, an enemy of the free world. he would never do that. or cozying up to the dear leader in korea. this was a pretty stupid point on your part peaky.
PeakTrader
Baffling, you didn’t disprove my statement, but you did prove you’re illogical.
And, Trump is your “dear leader” too. Get over it.
baffling
nothing illogical peak trader. your dear leader has cozied up to a russian dictator and korean killer, both enemies of the free world. am i wrong? perhaps it is best that you go back to the country you were born in. i don’t think trump wants your kind here in the states-you know, those not born in america. fascinating how an immigrant like yourself holds those anti-immigrant feelings. kind of like stephen miller and his immigrant grandparents.
ilsm
The rest of the signers of the JPCOA are abiding. What is wrong with neutering Trump’s ill-advised reneging on the Iran nuke deal? While India will attempt to buy Iran oil with rupees! Iran seems to oppose the Saudis (OPEC) selling another million barrels a day to fund USAF aerial refueling inhumane bombing over Yemen!
Moses Herzog
I’m sitting here reading “The Watchmen” comic, eating popcorn, and Dr Pepper 10. Now I need an aspirin to help my Dr Pepper 10 go down.
Uuuuuuuhh, is this a trick question??
I had a ton of links I wanted to share, can we consider this a “free for all” thread like some blogs do?? First one is some comedy relief I think we all need after this horrific week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqW5ynwFxas
Something tells me I’m forgetting a link that I wanted to share here, if it pops into my brain I’ll put it in this thread later
Moses Herzog
Some of the “Classic” moments from the Orange Menace. FYI there are some “dirty” words said in these vids, but they are said only by Trump and his “conservative” supporters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb9fXwTWhB4
Wow man, the drummer for Pantera died. Unbelievable. Phil Anselmo outlives both Dimebag Darrell AND Vinnie Paul. Anyone take that bet straightup around 1997?? Man I let out A LOT of anger alone in my apartment playing air guitar and air-drums to “Far Beyond Driven” drinking rotgut baijiu around 2006. 2 of the 3 real power players of the band—-gone. What a life.
Thank you, your posts are much appreciated.
Samuel
pgl
The EU is targeting U.S. exports such as peanut butter, bourbon, orange juice, steel, and agricultural products.
I’m having a PNB sandwich with bourbon and OJ for lunch as I watch the World Cup. Winning!
When Mexico beats Korea – will Russia have enough beer?
pgl
“CCC can borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department and extend that money to farm groups. If U.S. farmers see orders from China plummet because both countries create new layers of tariffs on imports, the White House previously said it wants to set up an assistance program for the U.S. ag sector, including the livestock industry, row crop producers and fruits and vegetable farmers impacted.”
China imposes a tariff and Team Trump robs US taxpayers $30 billion to bail out these farmers. Wouldn’t it just be easier to skip all of this and for all of us to just write checks directly to China. I’m sure Jared and Ivanka would still collect their commission checks!
CoRev
Menzie asks: “Are we winning yet?” My answer: “Dunno, are negotiations closed, yet?” Until they close, we will not know the final trade balance estimates.
As for Menzie’s prior focus on soybeans, the last few days prices have risen. China’s tariff is 25% and futures the prices has adjusted accordingly some where north of the total tariff impact as would be expected for a product that has multiple non/lower-tariff customers.
The more interesting question is how many soybeans have actually been moved at these lower prices? Are or more importantly how many farmers and granary operators actually selling into today’s market? Except during actual harvest time most have sell/store options waiting for higher prices. Or phrased in futures market terms are they taking long/for delivery positions on these contracts? Or is the soybean futures churn mostly short term positions only contract traders betting/gambling on price changes?
For soybeans the better question may be who is the winners and losers? That too for the longer term is still to be determined. If you understand my comment above you can tell who I think they may be for the short term. Gamblers anonymous anyone?
The futures market is not for the timid!
genauer
Since China is hitting BMW SUVs exported from the US with counter tariffs, The German car makers have to think about moving the production out of the US,
Agent Trump to Comrade Putin: Mission Accomplished
PeakTrader
2slugbaits, you’ve been watching too much propaganda.
Time to leave your bubble.
pgl
Yea – your bubble is well paid by Trump’s minions!
rtd
I would think that the proper look is longer-term in nature. If things remain as shown above, I would say it’s a “loss”. On the other hand, if we were to get closer to free trade than we were before any “trade war”, it could be seen as a “win”. I do wonder how many people see it the same way. In any case, I certainly wouldn’t think anyone doing a serious analysis would even attempt to make a conclusion right now. Doing so seems far too short-sided and emotional to seriously assess “wins”/“losses” now. I suppose it makes for decent clickbait, however.
2slugbaits
rtd You might have a point if we had good reason to believe that deep down Trump was committed to free trade and his threatened trade war was just a negotiating tactic to achieve freer trade. But everything we know about Trump suggests that he does not believe in free trade. He’s been clear on that going back at least 30 years and long before he entered politics. And his base certainly doesn’t want free trade. He campaigned on building a big beautiful wall, which is hardly consistent with a belief in the free mobility of capital and labor. He campaigned against TPP. He promised to tear up NAFTA. He told us that winning a trade war was easy, which tells us that Trump understands neither international trade nor war. His worldview was shaped by the zero sum environment in the NYC real estate market, which is hardly the kind of background that would train one’s mind to understand international trade. There’s nothing in his history or his campaign promises to his base that would justify our pretending that he is really committed to free trade. He just isn’t, despite PeakTrader’s often repeated delusions.
rtd
2slugbaits,
Even if your personal assumptions regarding Trump’s objective were to be true, how does that change how we assess winners/losers now? I don’t think such an analysis can be performed in earnest today. My point remains irrespective of Trump’s intentions. Moreover, I never stated anything regarding Trump’s intentions.
2slugbaits
rtd I’m not understanding you. If Trump’s intention is anything other than to use the threat of a trade war as a way to negotiate for freer trade, then how can the result be anything other than a loss? If I’m wrong about Trump’s intentions and we end up with freer trade as a result of his threatening a trade war, then I would count that as a win…assuming we didn’t have to suffer a prolonged trade war in order to get there. But if we end up with higher tariffs all around and less free trade, then I don’t see any other way to score that than as a loss. I’m curious what you would consider a win.
BTW, one other piece of evidence that tells us Trump doesn’t understand international trade. One of his justifications for killing TPP was that he believed multiple bilateral agreements were superior to a large multilateral agreement. This is simply wrong. The reasons why it is wrong are too complicated to explain here, but almost any textbook on international trade will have a chapter explaining why multilateral agreements are better than bilateral agreements.
rtd
2Slugbaits,
I’ll try to be clearer but in honesty, the following is only restating what I’ve already said here… we don’t know now and there’s no way to know now. This uncertainty applies to two things…
1)Trump’s ‘true’ motives
2) any trade war ‘win’/‘loss’
Menzie’s post is simply clickbait and does not pose a serious or meaningful question at this moment.
You ask “I’m curious what you would consider a win“ so I will restate my initial comment within this post:
“If things remain as shown above, I would say it’s a “loss”. On the other hand, if we were to get closer to free trade than we were before any “trade war”, it could be seen as a “win”.“
2slugbaits
rtd As to Trump’s motives, we have a couple of pieces of evidence. The first piece is his long history of opposing free trade. He’s been on the record for over 30 years. The second piece of evidence is what he promised his base during the campaign. I suppose he could always surprise us, but the smart money is on his wanting a trade war.
I’m glad you think that if things remain “as is” then this would be a loss. I agree. But you have to ask yourself what could force things to change, and here the economic literature is sobering. This gets too geeky for a deep explanation, but if you’re familiar with the geometry of “offer curves” and “contract curves” as used in both welfare economics and international trade economics, then you’ll know that once a trading partner moves off the “contract curve” and onto a different point along the “offer curve” there is nothing that guarantees movement back onto the “contract curve.” In other words, not only are free trade agreements fragile, but once you move away from those free trade agreements its very hard to return. So while we may not know for certain how things will work out, we have a lot of history and a lot of economic theory that tells us how things are very likely going to turn out. And it’s not a pretty tale.
rtd
As to Trump’s motives, i don’t think much of your assertions are particularly relevant:
1) in his pre-politician days, he was a talker for publicity’s sake. We know Trump was a marketer much more than anything else.
2) he lies more than most politicians (crazy to think)
3) he claims he’s pro-free trade now (didn’t he claim to be a democrat in the past? – people can change)
4) recall I never made any claims regarding if Trump wanted a trade war or not. But, if as you claim, he does desire a trade war, that doesn’t preclude a result of freer-than-before trade.
5) good luck at reconciling any of the above today
6) the point still remains that none of this allows us to decide ‘winners’/‘losers’ today although it does provide plentiful partisan clickbait
I am aware of some of the economic literature regarding these issues (admittedly these were not a huge focus at all in graduate school and have not been a keen interest since) but today’s global economies and particularly when considering the US, is one where we should not allow a Lucas-type Critique to stray too far.
rtd
The fact that this post has as many comments as it does only validates my claim that the value in Menzie’s post is page views and page views alone (this goes along with his emotional posts, biases, approach of quantity over quality, and general Trump-like behavior). No one can seriously claim Menzie’s post contains a well-thought-out question or analysis… it’s the econblogosphere equivalent of Breitbart or Media Matters.
I recall in 1991 when an ‘analyst’ at ESPN questioned whether the veteran Lakers winning game1 of the NBA Finals was too much of an obstacle for the relatively inexperienced Bulls to overcome. Of which I’m certain provided ‘great’ barroom dialogue.
rtd
So that Menzie doesn’t extrapolate to make even more unfounded assumptions to fit his emotions, I also recall announcers stating at halftime of Super Bowl XLVIII that you can never count out the Denver Broncos when Peyton Manning is behind center. The Broncos were on the undesired side of 22-0 at intermission and it never really got better with the final score being 43-8.
Menzie, keep the piling on the posts!!! hahaha
CoRev
RTD, I agree. It’s much too early to see how this plays out. The usual fear mongers are clueless of what is going on with negotiations. Or, for that matter, how our “Free Trade” agreements have significant portions that remain on the “Fair Trade” side, and why added negotiations are needed to move those “fair” portions closer to a “Free” trade environment.
For economists, they seem unable to think. If we were actually in “Free Trade” Agreements why would there be a need to negotiate, but all they seem to respond with is Trump’s claims of imbalances due to trade barriers are wrong. Their major arguments center on the imbalances are actually lower while ignoring the trade barrier issue. You’d think economists would realize in a perfect Free Trading relationship the trade barriers are supposedly non-existent.
2slugbaits
CoRevThe usual fear mongers are clueless of what is going on with negotiations.
Really? Look at the table from Foreign Policy that Menzie posted. Looks to me like us “clueless” fear mongers have a pretty good idea what’s going on with negotiations. Basically negotiations have broken down and a trade war is escalating. What do you see happening?
If we were actually in “Free Trade” Agreements why would there be a need to negotiate
Because some free trade agreements tend to hurt industries and workers in particular sectors that are at a comparative disadvantage. And Trump promised voters in those industries that he would protect them from foreign competition. Free trade means some workers and industries will suffer significant losses. That’s one reason why free trade agreements are fragile.
they seem to respond with is Trump’s claims of imbalances due to trade barriers are wrong
No, that’s not the claim at all. Some of Trump’s claims are wrong. Some of Trump’s claims are irrelevant; e.g., his obsession over a bilateral goods trade deficit with this or that country. And some of Trump’s claims have merit; e.g., stealing intellectual property. But the main problem we have with Trump is that he seems to think tariffs and trade barriers are the way to fix those problems. If you’re upset about the threat of intellectual property, then appeal to the WTO. Throwing up tariffs only compounds the problem. If you’re worried about bilateral trade imbalances, then buy an econ textbook and learn why that “problem” is irrelevant. If you’re worried about large current account deficits, then don’t cut taxes and run large structural budget deficits. If you’re worried about keeping a “warm” industrial base, then directly subsidize excess capacity. The point is that in every case tariffs either make the situation worse or at (at best) yields what economists call a “second best” approach.
Or, for that matter, how our “Free Trade” agreements have significant portions that remain on the “Fair Trade” side, and why added negotiations are needed to move those “fair” portions closer to a “Free” trade environment.
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It’s just a jumble of words.
CoRev
Ding, din ding, 2slugs found the clue bat: “Because some free trade agreements tend to hurt industries and workers in particular sectors that are at a comparative disadvantage. And Trump promised voters in those industries that he would protect them from foreign competition. Free trade means some workers and industries will suffer significant losses. That’s one reason why free trade agreements are fragile. ”
So what would you propose be done? Turn the other cheek and… Oh, that wrong approach for an analogy for many here. So how would you propose for negotiations? Our partners have little incentive to address change their advantages.
CoRev
2slugs admits: “I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It’s just a jumble of words.” That is because you are confused over the differences between Free and Fair trade.
Another point, trade is primarily bilateral. International trade agreements can be bilateral or with multiple nations. Either way, disparities between trading partners are also usually bilateral regardless of the number of signatories to the agreement. The final point re: trade agreements, conditions change within and between partners necessitating renegotiating the agreement. Trump is pointing out those differences cause by some of those changes.
2slugbaits
CoRev You asked what should be done about workers who are hurt by free trade. I believe I already answered that several times, but I’m happy to oblige once more. Since the gains from free trade exceed the losses of those hurt by free trade, the obvious answer is to tax some of the excess gains going to the winners and provide the losers with various kinds of compensation, such as retraining, relocation expenses, expanded unemployment benefits, assistance with job searches, etc. Feel free to add to the list.
As to what should be done to remedy “unfair” trade practices, that depends on the particular problem. In general nothing should be done. For example, if China wants to subsidize its exports to the US, we should thank them for the charitable contribution to our welfare. If the problem is piracy of intellectual property, the WTO provides a venue for that. If the concern is maintaining a warm base for national security reasons, then the government should subsidize excess capacity. As I said before, imposing tariffs is pretty much the worst and most self-destructive response and doesn’t really do anything to fix the underlying problem. Tariffs are never the right answer.
Another point, trade is primarily bilateral. International trade agreements can be bilateral or with multiple nations.
This is just nonsense. For a long time the US was a strongly protectionist country. Then between the World Wars the US tried to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements, without much success. The reason GATT was created in 1947 was precisely because of the difficulty in negotiating multiple bilateral trade agreements following World War I. The reality is that you can never just negotiate with one other country because there are other countries who can then strategically react to what both sides of the bilateral trade. There’s a fairly deep literature on this and I’m not aware of any international trade economist who believes bilateral trade negotiations are better than multilateral trade agreements. This has been a settled issue for at least 70 years.
you are confused over the differences between Free and Fair trade.
I understand the difference quite well. I’m the one who had to write several posts explaining the difference, remember? What you don’t understand is that policies that put “fair trade” practices above “free trade” practices always reduce economic welfare (with a few textbook exceptions).
CoRev
2 slugs, your answers are not new nor not already available. Workers have many path to improve conditions when injured by job loss. Trump has already proposed a solution for farmers.
You are too enamored of Econ. theory versus reality. Trade, whether under an agreement or open, is essentially a bilateral contract. It is competition that incentivizes competitors to change their approaches to those contracts. Strangely this is ongoing whether they are made under an agreement or open environment.
You have also had to explain several times your arcane understanding of Fair and Free trade. My explanation for my misusing the terms is my old mind is faster than my elderly fingers typing. Y’all may not like or believe that message, but that’s what happening on this end.
2slugbaits
CoRevyour answers are not new nor not already available. Workers have many path to improve conditions when injured by job loss.
Huh? You’re the one who asked would should be done, remember? I’ll quote you: “So what would you propose be done? Turn the other cheek…” I also invited you to add to the my list of recommendations, which you didn’t. Many of the things you say are already available are paid for by the people who are most vulnerable. For example, unemployment insurance is paid for by employees; i.e., the incidence of the tax falls on employees. I’m suggesting that expanded unemployment insurance for those who are hurt by foreign trade should be funded by those who gain from foreign trade. That’s kind of an important difference. Same with retraining and relocation. Since you didn’t like my list and you weren’t able to add to it, I can only conclude that what you really want is to reap the economic benefits of free trade while enjoying the political benefits of aggrieved downscale voters who lose out because of trade. That’s pretty cynical.
Trump has already proposed a solution for farmers.
Yes. Are you proud of that “solution”? Trump creates a problem and then tells taxpayers to clean up his mess.
Trade, whether under an agreement or open, is essentially a bilateral contract.
We’re not talking about bilateral contracts between businesses. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements provide the rules and standards that set the boundaries on those private contracts. Multilateral trade agreements are better…especially if you’re a large country that can influence prices. Seriously, quit embarrassing yourself and take the time to read some basic econ textbooks. You’re making a fool of yourself.
CoRev
2slugs, your premise is wrong! My was you added nothing new to what is already available. Moreover: “…paid for by the people who are most vulnerable. For example, unemployment insurance is paid for by employees; i.e., the incidence of the tax falls on employees.” Unemployment insurance is paid by the business and not the employees. Your 2nd failure. Your approach is to add another tax on the business to pay for a theoretical harm from profit from a more fair free trade agreement. In typical democratic fashion increasing taxes on businesses is a better, new or different solution. More taxes, more regulations, and more restrictions on productive competitive businesses is always better.
Trump’s solution to improve trade fairness is in two parts, long term and short. You have none, just status quo.
You still don’t understand trade versus trade theory. Nearly all trade is bilateral contracts between businesses. They are driven by competitive forces. That’s why the EU wants trade with Iran. EU companies were trading with Iran while they were restricted by the Nuclear Agreement.
You were doing just fine until your arrogance drove you to hubris-ville again. Sad really.
2slugbaits
CoRevUnemployment insurance is paid by the business and not the employees.
Please pay attention to what I wrote. The “impact” of the insurance is paid by the employer, but the “incidence” is paid by the worker. I’ve pointed out the difference between “impact” and “incidence” many times as part of your continuing education. So while this might be “jargon”, you don’t have an excuse because I’ve brought it to your attention many times in the past. Please try to retain stuff. Accountants worry about the impact of a tax; economists worry about the incidence of the tax.
CoRevYour approach is to add another tax on the business to pay for a theoretical harm from profit from a more fair free trade agreement.
Ugh. The point is that even after paying some of the windfall gain in taxes, the winners are still better off than they would be if not offering to share in those gains results in less free trade because aggrieved voters (i.e., rustbelt Trump voters) turn protectionist. You seem to belong to the “cut off your nose to spite your face” school of economics. And remember, you’re the one who earlier expressed such heartfelt concern for the fate of workers who lost out due to free trade. Apparently your sympathy doesn’t go so far as wanting to do something about it. And I wasn’t talking about taxes on business; I actually had in mind higher income taxes on elites who have captured much of the gain from free trade.
You still don’t understand trade versus trade theory. Nearly all trade is bilateral contracts between businesses.
In case you didn’t notice, I’m the one who pointed out that trade contracts was between businesses. I am the one who brought up the difference between trade contracts and trade agreements. I was telling you that bilateral trade agreements are not the same as bilateral trade contracts between businesses. I thought I was pretty clear about the difference, but evidently not. Trade agreements are between governments and set the rules and parameters for actual trade contracts. When people are talking about bilateral versus multilateral trade agreements, they are talking about agreements that set rules, standards, parameters, appeals, etc. They are not talking about contracts between BMW and Ford.
Please, please, please take the time to learn a little economics. This is supposed to be an econ blog, so if you want to participate in a meaningful way you really need to step back and learn some econ. You can’t go through life just bullshitting your way through. That stuff might work down at the VFW hall with your drinking buddies, but you’re embarrassing yourself here. If for no other reason, you need to learn some of the basics for the sake of Menzie’s eyes. It can’t be good for him if he’s continually rolling his eyes in disbelief with some of the stuff you write.
pgl
“It’s much too early to see how this plays out. The usual fear mongers are clueless of what is going on with negotiations.”
Trump is also clueless with respect to what is going on with this stuff but permit me to have Luke Skywalker comment on your first sentence here:
RTD, from my comments my position is clear: “if we were to get closer to free trade than we were before any “trade war”, it could be seen as a “win”.” I think we have already achieved some minor positives.
Then Trump is a lot smarter than his haters want to admit,and this could all be a ploy to pull the trade issue rug just before the mid-terms and declare a victory. We’ll see.
CoRev
What further surprises me is we are all discussing agreements without any of us familiar with their internal details. These multi-lateral agreements include clauses tailored for individual nations’ advantages. Does anyone know how conditions have changed for them? Does anyone believe that agreement changes are not needed? If these advantages are still existing how would you leverage change?
Let me provide some examples for consideration. Has energy production stayed the same? Has GMO seed proven unsafe? Has electricity generation prices changed effecting refined metals cost?. Do any of these changes effect current trade agreements?
Erik Poole
Not bad for a President who came to office with less than 50% of the popular vote. Could this one man take down the entire post-war international trading system? Or just inflict a lot of economic damage, especially on the USA?
So far the message is rather clear. Americans are no longer trustworthy. Contracts with Americans are turning out to be worthless. This is the new American brand. It is interesting to contemplate the extent of the damage done to US reputation capital.
But then this is also the country that invented the concepts of ‘democratic gerrymandering’, ‘democratic ethnic cleansing’ and ‘top down violent regime change’ so none of this should surprise anybody.
PeakTrader
Erik, so, Canadian propaganda is worse than the U.S..
It’s not surprising.
pgl
Blaming the Canadians for the horrific behavior of the Trump White House? You are a lot like Trump – blame others for your own pathetic behavior.
PeakTrader
Trump finally has the great team he wants.
The Canadian economic mess was well before Trump.
pgl
Yea – Stephen Miller is Trump’s man. Almost as racist as you are!
PeakTrader
Pgl, you only look at skin color and ignore culture, character, etc..
I guess, you feel based on skin color, some need to be compensated and some need to be punished.
You need to get over labeling people by skin color – people are more diverse than you can imagine.
Paul Mathis
What exactly is the point of this trade war?
Unemployment has been 4.1% or less for the past 8 months and is likely to go lower.
We have 10 million more jobs now than at the previous peak before the Great Recession.
Corporate profits are at record highs.
Is the objective to increase inflation and reduce international trade? That seems to be the only outcome.
pgl
The point is simple – Trump’s buddies are exploiting the stock market as Trump is giving them early tips on his next move. This White House is incredibly corrupt.
PeakTrader
Is that what those wackos at CNN told you today?
pgl
I don’t watch CNN. But we know you tune into every word from Fox and Friends as this is where you get your marching orders for the day.
PeakTrader
Paul, your full-time employment data is way off and many jobs don’t pay well. Maintaining a core steel and aluminum industry is not unreasonable. Wanting a level playing field, or reducing trade barriers, is not unreasonable either. I’m sure, you want more good jobs, and more R&D investment, in the future. The objective is to get these petty backstabbing politicians to accept free trade and open markets.
pgl
“your full-time employment data is way off ”
Please mansplain to us why what he wrote is “way off”. Of course you could provide the transcript to the latest Fox and Friends and we can read your sources for ourselves!
PeakTrader
The U.S. created only five million full-time jobs, since the economy peaked in 2007. You need 1 to 1 1/2 million jobs per year just to keep up with population growth. Weak job growth, since the recession, supports weak GDP growth, since the “recovery.”
Total employment is 148.66 million so the increase of part time jobs is less than a tenth of a percent. Way off you say?
pgl
We asked you to reply to what Paul wrote. You didn’t. You just babble the same old rants.
BTW – you accused me of being anti-white above. FYI lying POS, I’m a white guy. But unlike you I am not afraid of people who are Hispanic or Asian or black.
CoRev
Paul, when would you propose we enter into negotiations? When we are within a strong economy or weak?
Paul Mathis
Negotiations are fine at any time. Tariffs and trade wars are bad at all times.
Unfortunately, Trump has proven to be a very inept negotiator so all he does is impose tariffs and start trade wars. He cannot even make a deal with Canada!
When have trade wars been successful for us?
genauer
Traditionally both the US & UK have been free trade countries.
Now both make troubles, not only Trump in t he US but Brexit as well
And just to be clear, The German Auto industry would be fine with the Trump proposal to eleminate all Auto tariffs, light Sedans AND SUVs.
“disparity between the 2.5% tariff the U.S. currently charges for car imports and the 10% duty imposed by Europe. The U.S. imposes a 25% tariff on imports of light trucks, vs. Europe’s 10% rate for those vehicles.”
We could then built the SUVs some better place
Moses Herzog
Wow,, I’ve kept a peripheral eye on the German football team for a long time, and I don’t remember them ever sucking a__ this bad. And Argentina?? They look more absentee than Hillary Clinton on a Wisconsin to Michigan “I’m With Me” campaign bus. And what’s the deal with the German coach with his tongue out of his mouth all the time?? Is he secretly a lizard person?? What’s going on there??
Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, has resigned from the Republican Party, and registered as an independent.
Schmidt, on his decision to leave: “This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party.”
Conservative columnist George Will has similarly resigned from the Republican Party and urged voters to vote Democratic in the 2018 mid-term elections.
Of course, these two will be instantly branded by Trump supporters as “RINO’s,” or Republicans In Name Only. I would submit that the true RINO’s are those who refuse to repudiate someone whom Schmidt accurately characterizes as a lawless, vile, corrupt, mean and cruel president, and I agree with his strong recommendation to vote Democratic in November.
CoRev
Jeffery, neither party change is unexpected, nor is your recommendation. Now what? Shall we list the next set of voter changes after the mid-terms?
Jeffrey J. Brown
For anyone who wants to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in my opinion the choices is clear: Vote Democratic this November.
Moses Herzog
I just saw the latter part of this, and it’s one of the best documentaries or shows on basketball I have ever seen (link below). There were certain coaches who saw the natural athletic gifts of African American athletes before others did (or maybe stated more accurately, recruited them, and played them on the field/court when society didn’t like seeing black athletes “riding herd” over and being dominant over white athletes). Don Haskins was one of those guys. Barry Switzer was one of those guys. Jerry Tarkanian was one of those guys. Billy Tubbs was one of those guys looking around the economically poor district high schools for black athletes (yes, clear into the early ’80s there was still some bias to white athletes in recruiting, which, ironically, was self-defeating behavior).
I had never realized Al McGuire was one of those guys, popping his head around the corner to look for athletes in predominantly black neighborhoods in the ’70s. Which explains A LOT (although not all) about Al McGuire’s winning percentage at Marquette. The show is called “Untucked” http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=untucked
Zi Zi
Turkey Election is tomorrow. Erdogan wants firm grip on power until 2028 with no Parliament. Many countries are undertaking this task of National Revival in a “Sure” hand.
Moses Herzog
As Americans we have a lot of romantic regard to and nostalgic affection for railroads.
I think the contributions of Chinese people to the American railroads has not been recognized as much it should be, and I hope that will be rectified. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvoMRdyVy0M
Our place at Donner Lake is about 1/2 mile from the RR tracks. I like to hear the rumble of the diesel engines laboring up west. The east bound trains make braking squeals and fan cooling noise from the dynamic braking. Back in the day when my legs were worth a damn, we would ride our bikes through the snow sheds to the top of the pass. Then have fun blasting down old Hwy 40 to home.
There is a video of the last steam train from Sacramento to Truckee on youtube.
I have memories of the cab forward Malets blasting through town carrying tanks for the Korean war. At speed they shook the ground.
Moses Herzog
Been there my friend—multiple times. I’m guessing your experience was slightly more fun than mine (although generally I enjoyed it, because the scenery and adrenaline rush going downhill). I took it by semi-truck on I-80. Bet you heard some “jake brakes” going through there in your day. One of the very few places I would use mine. I always thought “jake brakes” a tad philistine and crude (and part of the reason semi-truck drivers have bad reputation), but there you must use them or you’ll be smelling your own brake pads burning on the way back down.
dilbert dogbert
We spent a couple of days, Fri & Sat, at Donner to escape the heat in Hotter Than Hell (AKA Cool). Not yet full on vacation season up there yet. I did notice that the trucks seemed to be avoiding “Jakeing”. Also the infamous, wake board, boats were not blasting by with their stupid music over amped. Also they seemed to be staying further from the dock which avoids wave damage. Year before last the water agency let the lake level rise to almost the bottom of the dock deck and the wake board boats damaged the dock. Wake boats must die!!! The guys on the wake boards did not seem to be having as much fun as the water skiiers. They were going slower and not doing tricks or jumps.
Moses Herzog
Another stunt you can do is just gear down (in the semis). I did that (probably most of the time) the only problem is you have macho owner operator types, that like to go down at 90+ mph. and they follow each other too close, and if they don’t change lanes etc. it raises the risks of being rear-ended when you gear down. It’s always kind of dicey there, but really after your first run down it’s very manageable. Most drivers their first time down get pretty white-knuckled on that steering wheel though. Unbelievable views. It’s always more scenic in the western USA and you can see some weird things (in the skyline and the horizon, and more “oddball” weather events). There are a few other places (again mostly western states) that rival Donner Pass scenery wise, but not many. Just viewing it from a truck driver’s perspective Oregon and Washington state were my favorites. If you’re driving in a car then it becomes a different ball game and you might choose others. Most semi-drivers probably like the southeast best, but I never got too much into that redneck shit. Dixie-flag on the grill, chain connected to the wallet. etc. Most semi-drivers are good guys deep-down but it’s a backwards culture.
pgl
As usual we are seeing both PeakDishonesty and CoRev go “I’m rubber you’re glue” but you just have to love when PeakDishonesty says he has provided data I have ignored and yet no source as usual. Try this for the serial liar known as PeakDishonesty:
“Steel Companies in the US produced 78.92 million metric tons of the global production of crude steel in 2015. Production of steel in the US goes back to 1629 when the first plant was set up in Massachusetts. Today, the US is home to over 100 steel production plants in localized regions all over the country. Most of the production is in the Pittsburg-Youngstown with several industries in its districts. Most of the locally produced steel in the US is consumed by the automobile industries in Detroit and Michigan. Major steel producing companies in the US are U.S. Steel, Nucor, and AK Steel. The industry employs over 142,000 people.”
PeakDihonesty is trying to claim that the U.S. steel sector is about to disappear. What a laughably stupid claim. Yes China produces a lot but they also consume a lot. Facts Peaky as opposed to your incessant lies. Next time you want to tell us that you have provided sources – actually DO IT!
Steel consumption by country. Of course net imports = consumption – production.
Note how easy it is to produce honest data that adds up when you know even the most basic economics, which of course PeakStupidity cannot be bothered with.
pgl
Let’s also look at an index of steel prices to be compllete:
Pgl is trying to claim that the U.S. steel sector was doing just fine at the end of the Obama administration. When under Obama’s recovery the steel industry never achieved pre-recession production levels. What a laughably stupid claim.
Pgl, see how easy it is to refute and ridicule? Why not just refute by showing your numbers?
2slugbaits
CoRev I believe pgl was showing wholesale prices for iron and steel. You’re showing metric tons of production. See the difference? You sound like an old fashioned Soviet planner who would obsess over how many tons of steel should be produced with each Five Year Plan. And if you think steel is doing so well under Trump, then what’s the justification for him wanting a tariff?
CoRev
2slugs, this is to what I was responding: ““Steel Companies in the US produced 78.92 million metric tons of the global production of crude steel in 2015.” Quoted right in his original comment.
pgl
I provide data – you and PeakyDishonesty just bitch. Down 78.5??? What 78.5 pennies? If you are going to spin for Wilbur Ross – at least learn to write complete sentences.
BTW – the FRED link on prices was up to date. Did you not notice, steel prices have been rising. FYI – that alone undermines every dishonest piece of garbage you and Peaky can gin up.
I would explain it to you in terms of demand and supply but then that would be way over your head.
CoRev
Pgl, see my response above to 2slugs. Or better still go read your original comment. It might clear your confused and fevered mind.
pgl
Yea – steel production in 2016 was SLIGHTLY below where it was in 2015. This was still FAR beyond the non-existent US steel sector PeakDishonesty tried to be portray. If you think your quibbling justifies what PeakDishonesty is saying, you are even dumber than he is.
CoRev
Pgl, and steel production was above the 2015 figure you provided. I guess using your logic that rise is solely die to Trump?
pgl
“Pgl is trying to claim that the U.S. steel sector was doing just fine at the end of the Obama administration.”
I never made such a statement. All I am saying is that the US steel sector still exists. Peaky was off on his usual hyperbole as to how it was non-existent.
Hey CoRev – you either failed to grasp the conversation (again) or you are just doing your usual lying.
pgl
CoRev asks for updated data and I provide. Just checked the 10-K filing for AK Steel. Back in 2015, its operating profits were less than $87 million. Over the past two years – its operating profits exceeded $220 million per year.
Of course CoRev was either too lazy or too stupid to check. Or maybe he did check but was too dishonest to admit this.
CoRev
Hey pgl – you either failed to grasp the conversation (again) or you are just doing your usual lying. I never made a statement about operating profits. There’s that fevered mind again, or is it another of your lies?
Gee, this pgl style of comment is really easy. No value added and no thought needed for creating them.
pgl
You are doing a lot of I’m rubber, you’re glued of late. BORING!
pgl
Imposing new limits on U.S. firms operating in China, and taking actions that limit their sales in China. Apple and GM sell a lot of made-in-China phones and cars that wouldn’t be impacted by tariffs. I do though wish there was a bit more rigor in separating out the impact of Chinese action on the profits of U.S. companies from the impact of Chinese action on the U.S. economy: if China makes it harder for Starbucks to make coffee in China (maybe using Swiss beans? for tax purposes) or McDonalds to make hamburgers in China, there won’t be much impact on the overall U.S. economy. Chinese made hamburgers aren’t the same as U.S. made planes. In 2017 U.S.firms earned around $13 billion (according to the U.S. data) in China on around $200 billion in sales.*
pgl
Brad Setser notes how easy it would be for China to win this trade war: https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-would-happen-if-china-started-selling-its-treasury-portfolio
The headline is what would happen if China decided to sell its U.S. government bonds and let its currency devalue. Then again he also mocks the insane rants from PeakyBoo by noting Peaky’s worst nightmare:
Imposing new limits on U.S. firms operating in China, and taking actions that limit their sales in China. Apple and GM sell a lot of made-in-China phones and cars that wouldn’t be impacted by tariffs. I do though wish there was a bit more rigor in separating out the impact of Chinese action on the profits of U.S. companies from the impact of Chinese action on the U.S. economy: if China makes it harder for Starbucks to make coffee in China (maybe using Swiss beans? for tax purposes) or McDonalds to make hamburgers in China, there won’t be much impact on the overall U.S. economy. Chinese made hamburgers aren’t the same as U.S. made planes. In 2017 U.S.firms earned around $13 billion (according to the U.S. data) in China on around $200 billion in sales.*
Moses Herzog
At the risk of sounding like an Alex Jones listener/fan, I have suspected these existed for awhile now. If for no other reason than it’s very “doable” and that reality often follows (obviously in a staggered and delayed fashion) science fiction literature. Now, I know this is going to sound paranoid and “out there”, but I have even heard birds around my home, that had a “mechanical” or “commercial sound” to them. What does that mean “commercial sound”?? Well, you know how when you watch some 3-D movies you can tell just by looking its’s a computer generated image—well, imagine that kind of thing—only it’s audio based. The “intuition” that the sound is artificial comes from the audio sound of the bird call itself. Do I know 100% this has happened near my home?? NO, I do not, but I trust my gut, and 60% I believe this may have occurred. Some bird calls I have heard have been quite odd (“too cliche” sounding)—and on top of that—there’s a large Air Force base not terribly far from here, so……. it’s “conceivable”. http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2152027/china-takes-surveillance-new-heights-flock-robotic-doves-do-they
PeakTrader
Pgl calls other racists, but displays the same tendencies as racists. Sarah Sanders was booted out of a leftist restaurant, people who don’t want Confederate history to disappear are called racists, opposing views at college campuses are met with violence, Hollywood leftists want to kill Trump and his family, the mainstream media is almost totally biased, leftists want to impeach Trump for no reason, etc.. It’s intolerance, discrimination, fear, and hate. Leftists would be putting up signs in front of their businesses like “We don’t serve Uncle Toms,” but that would be too obvious.
PeakTrader
Leftists carry a lot of baggage and want to shut out debate.
They’re also prominent in sexism.
pgl
“They’re also prominent in sexism.”
I guess you think Trump is a leftist. After all his view of women is that they are nothing more than people one should “grab by the pu$$#”!
His lawyer Rudy G. must also be a leftist as the baggage he carries includes 3 ex-wives he cheated on.
Next we will see PeakPathetic pushing Jonah (momma’s boy) Goldberg’s book “Liberal Facism”!
pgl
I don’t just call you a racist. Your own words prove you are one. BTW I grew up in Atlanta so do not lecture me about southern history.
Now if you think Sarah Sanders is an Uncle Tom – we all have to laugh. BTW – I saw what she tried to order. No wonder she is so fat. Red Hen did her favor by telling her to eat somewhere else. Maybe a salad would be more appropriate than that lard she likes to eat.
pgl
PeakDishonesty is not the 1st to accuse China of adopting predatory pricing with respect to steel. Apparently some outfit called Eurofer did so back in 2009 per this alert:
“Due on the 24 February, the report is said to contain information on various subsidy schemes operating in China. Going beyond the publicly available statistics and data and presenting unverifiable information contributed by Chinese sources, Eurofer is attempting to demonstrate Chinese steel pricing policy as “predatory” and alert the European Commission of its disastrous impact on the European industry. The Chinese government have always claimed that its low prices are based on the competitiveness of its steel production.”
Got that? Unverifiable information! Exactly what PeakDishonesty does on a daily basis!
pgl
If you think Wilbur Ross is bad – check out this Eurofer which is the mouth piece for European steel:
Of course China exports a lot more steel to Europe than it does to the US. I guess PeakSocialist has comrades in those European socialist states as they use anti-competitive measures to bail out their failing companies too!
PeakTrader
Pgl, even liberal economists, including Navarro, say: “Tariffs on steel, aluminum are long overdue.”
You had to Google to find some “economist” none of us ever heard of? Oh wow – PeakDishonesty has turned to the socialist EPI. I guess next you will be supporting Cynthia Nixon!
pgl
I love this claim:
“Six smelters shut down, and only two of the five remaining smelters are operating at full capacity, despite an increase in U.S. demand for primary aluminum. ”
It seems even US aluminum producers have established smelter affiliates in Iceland as the cost of electricity is much lower there. These tariffs are not changing this at all. I thought everyone knew this by now. But not PeakStupidity’s new guru. Does Peaky know? Maybe he does but of course we know he is not honest enough to admit this.
pgl
Hey Peaky – I bet you failed to follow the links in your own story:
Trump’s tariffs will cause more US job losses than it creates jobs in the protected sectors. C’mon Peaky – either you are too dumb to read your own links or you want Americans to lose jobs.
Moses Herzog
Well, since Menzie has gone from superhuman prof blog posting pace to normal dude blog pace, here’s some clickbait for entertainment: https://xkcd.com/2001/
More Googling? You misrepresent the story. Try READING just the title:
‘Why China can’t count on Brazil to fill the soybean gap in its trade battle with the US’
That does not say China will be buying even more US production as Chinese consumers may switch to other products. Of course you might have realized that had you not dropped out of freshman economics during the 1st week.
Of course this undermines a lot of the trash Menzie has had to endure from your comrade CoRev. Of course neither you nor CoRev know enough economics to realize why.
CoRev
Pgl, you ignorance again caused you to totally misread another article.
pgl
Menzie’s latest post is an eloquent take down of your latest insanity. Check it out. And you will not need to go Googling!
CoRev
Pgl, you really really don’t understand this INTERNATIONAL commodity issue at all do you?
Above I see: ” Could this one man [Trump] take down the entire post-war international trading system?”
Unlikely unless it is going down anyway.
I find appeals to goodness of any “post-war [whatever US empire imposed blither word] system [or order/blither word]” rather dull.
Suppose the ‘system’ or ‘order’ imposes a very legal regime that is not just?
In scripture common from Japan to Rome the ideal is for “just” more than “legitimate”.
CoRev
I suggest that when we use the terms Fair and Free Trade we use common definitions. These are what i have found:
fair trade
NOUN
trade between companies in developed countries and producers in developing countries in which fair prices are paid to the producers.
“supporters believe that fair trade is making a significant positive impact in the world” · “fair trade coffee”
free trade
[ˈˌfrē ˈtrād]
NOUN
international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.
“an agreement intended to introduce free trade in marine products” · “a free trade
I tried to highlight what I thought were the important differences. Fair = developing countries and Free = existing agreements.
Free trade can still have fairness issues between nations’ agreements, and even if fair when first negotiated conditions can and will change. Oil production and the use of Genetically Modified organism (GMO) seeds and following or not laws/regulations trying to effect Climate Change are clear examples. I included oil production and Climate Change as examples on how they perturb costs for electric power generation, a critical component on competitive positions.
CoRev: Free trade has a well-defined meaning amongst economist; it is a lack of a tariffs and nontariff barriers. In this sense “Free Trade Agreement” is a misnomer; a better term (used by the WTO) is “Preferential Trade Agreements”.
On the other hand, “Fair Trade” is a normative phrase. The definition you use is merely one of very many. As long as we have a different definition of “fair” (as in fair prices), then we will have different definitions of “fair trade”. Even if you said “fair” prices equalled free market prices, that would allow for monopoly or monopsony pricing, and the presence of externalities. If you said fair prices were those delivered by a competitive market, then you’d have to be sure you knew the first and second welfare theorems…to be sure you understood what you were saying.
Like I say, if you want to debate international trade intelligently, it pays to learn the topic systematically, using a textbook; then you can critique in a systematic way.
pgl
My favorite is Harmless Coconut Water which brags about how its Fair Trade means high prices. Yea – twice the price of Zico Coconut Water which used to be the highest priced brand. Fair to the company selling the stuff but a total ripoff for anyone dumb enough to buy their products.
CoRev
Pgl, another economist who doesn’t understand the definition of Fair Trade. Your comment is exemplary of why we should at least agree on what it means.
CoRev
Menzie we agree on the core meaning of Free Trade, but you failed to agree or actually define Fair Trade. Like I say, if you want to debate international trade intelligently, it pays to learn the topic systematically and a common defintion/understanding for the core terms, using a textbook; then you can critique in a systematic way.
When I research the definition of Free Trade i come up with a common theme: a social program aimed at improving the lives of the poor in developing countries by offering better terms to producers and helping them to organize. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.3.217, Similar definitions can be found in Wiki, Investopedia (where I found mine), in the Business Dictionary, ad even in Economics papers https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.3.217 The Economics of Fair Trade “Abstract
Fair Trade is a labeling initiative aimed at improving the lives of the poor in developing countries by offering better terms to producers and helping them to organize. …”
I find it difficult to understand your reticence in defining Free Trade for the purposes of clarifying the discussion here. Since you can not define it I assume your discussion is not systematic.
When you say: “using a textbook; then you can critique in a systematic way.” I have and they are probably more appropriate for Foreign policy and Business Management issues than economics.
Economics is not the center of a larger portion of your readers and a huge percentage of the populace. Free Trade also is not Economics centered.
CoRev
DAMMIT!!!! My mind for got to tell my fingers Free and (Fair) Trade also are not Economics centered.
baffling
there is a reason you continue to mistake free and fair trade definitions and arguments, corev. it has to do with a confused mind.
pgl
“you failed to agree or actually define Fair Trade”.
I think Menzie was clear. Economists do not use ambiguous terms like “fair trade” for a reason. But if you insist – please mansplain to us what you think is the precise meaning of “fair trade”.
CoRev
Pgl, I have prided my recommended definition, twice now. Economists don’t agree with it because it is more a business and foreign policy issue.
CoRev
prided = provided my ole mind finger meld is working less and less.
2slugbaits
CoRev Just this weekend Trump used the words “fair trade” in the sense of “leveling the playing field” or “reciprocity.” In other words, he’s of the opinion that if some country imposes a 10% tariff on US goods, then our putting a 10% tariff on imports from that country somehow resets things back to even. That’s the kind of stuff you hear from people who don’t know anything about international economics.
The definition of “fair trade” that you cited refers to the “fair trade movement”, as I explained before. It’s about paying non-monopsony wages to farmers in developing countries. My local coffee shop offers “fair trade” coffee for a (moderately) higher price. I don’t think it requires superhuman effort to distinguish “fair trade’ in that context from “fair trade” as used by industry/union spokespersons or in a Trump rally to MAGA hat festooned rustbelt workers.
This doesn’t get enough attention, but as bad as tariffs are, there are worse ways to inhibit free trade. For example, a quota system (voluntary or involuntary) is worse than a tariff. And this worries me because Trump is likely to resort to quotas if (or more likely when) his current approach of threatening tariffs goes down in flames.
pgl
The word “fair” and Donald Trump should never be used in the same sentence.
CoRev
2slugs, what was your complaint about Trump’s comment? ” Just this weekend Trump used the words “fair trade” in the sense of “leveling the playing field” or “reciprocity.” We’ve already established that Free Trade is not really without some Trade Barriers, as were negotiated in the specific agreements. Conditions change – agreed? Now that we are in a strong economy isn’t it time to re-negotiate some of the barriers due to those changes?
Our quotas V your quotas and our tariffs V your tariffs is what is being negotiated.
BTW China is not on the list of nations with which we have trade agreements. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
How does that impact them in terms of Free or Fair Trade? Or are we in an open competitive environment?
CoRev: The United States and China are signatories to the World Trade Organization.
CoRev
Yup! But we still have ZEROformal trade agreements.
That’s your solution? You are proposing every trade dispute, at all levels, between us be taken to the WTO for speedy resolution?
For all the complaints about Trump’s methods, your solution is so untimely as to require potential subsidies for each industry trading with China. How many are not?
your solution is so untimely as to require potential subsidies for each industry trading with China.
Just for kicks, do you mind telling us why you think every trade barrier (real or perceived) “requires” some kind of retaliatory action on our part? Is this another version of “leveling the playing field”?
2slugs asks if mercantilism sound familiar? Read about it, but it is barely applicable to today’s trade practices with perhaps the exception of China and several other dictator lead nations.
How did you think it applies?
pgl
We have free trade with only 20 nations which do not include the UK??? Lord CoRev – this list is not what you think it means. But nice try there!
pgl
Trump trade war has induced Harley Davidson to shift production of their motor bikes offshore:
I wonder how PeakDishonesty and CoRev is going to spin this development as us “winning”. Oh wait – Wilbur Ross and Jared were short selling this American corporation. You bet they are winning.
baffling
harley davidson, the great indonesian motorcycle!
spencer
All of you listen to Trump bragging about job creation since he took office.
The average increase in monthly payroll employment has been 184,000.
But from 2012 to 2016 it average a 204,000 monthly increases.
That is right, employment gains were larger under Obama than they have been under Trump.
Spencer, as we get closer to full employment, fewer jobs are created.
We had diminishing job growth the past few years, which is expected, but should’ve had much stronger job growth in the early years of the “recovery,” particularly given the huge job losses in the recession.
We’ve actually had weak job growth, along with weak GDP growth, in the Obama “recovery.”
pgl
“as we get closer to full employment”.
This is a total flip flop from all your other rants. No one ever accused you of consistency!
baffling
peaky complains about the weakness of the obama recovery, and as that recovery continues to progress to “full employment” all of a sudden he completely changes his opinion on the performance. face it peaky, your assessment of the obama recovery and the trump miracle are really full of political hackery. obama presided over the second longest (and will probably become the longest) recovery on record. this is a fact. if trump employment growth is being limited by “full employment”, then please thank obama for getting us into that position. interesting how trump is being limited while providing fiscal stimulus and the greatest tax cut in history. perhaps the timing of that policy is flawed?
CoRev
Spencer different starting point, don’cha think?
spencer
Yes, different starting points.
I choose the last 5 years under Obama so I would compare the data during an economic expansion and avoid the distortions of the recession, recovery in the early Obama years.
So I used different starting points to make the comparison meaningful.
The E.U. economy is much weaker than the U.S. economy, and China does all kinds of crazy things to keep the masses busy.
According to the charts, it looks like the U.S. wanting to maintain a steel and aluminum industry, from predatory pricing, has caused an international response on many other U.S. products.
There is no predatory pricing and the US steel sector can survive foreign competition if it tries. Of course PeakIdiot has zero faith in the ability of Americans to run companies without Trumpian-Putin style intervention.
Pgl, entire industries have already been offshored to other countries. Hello?
You’ve been watching too much CNN.
Predatory pricing and locating facilities overseas are two different topics. C’mon PeakyBoo – we know you are a Russian bot but Lord – couldn’t Putin train his pet parrot not to write such economic gibberish?
Incidentally – there are still a lot of steel production in the US. You ignored my point about your distrust in Americans doing good work. Ever heard of AK Steel? They export to Europe. Since they are a publicly traded company – you could look at their 10-K filing at http://www.sec.gov.
But judging from the serial illiteracy you routinely display here – you’d never understand what it says.
Pgl, I cited data before, which you decided to ignore. Much U.S. steel production has already been offshored. China produces half of the world’s steel, dumps its steel to third countries, and those countries export to the U.S. at lower prices. Consequently, the U.S. global share of steel production fell from 12% in 2000 to 5% in 2017. Hello?
Barron’s – June 23, 2018
“So far, the tariffs that have been announced have been tit-for-tat…The Trump administration is also considering imposing penalties on an additional $200 billion of Chinese products. China can respond to that with more tariffs, but would find itself rapidly running out of goods to tax, given that it imported only $130 billion from the U.S. in 2017.
China has other measures it could use, but many of them could prove to be self-defeating. It could, if it wanted, offset the tariffs by causing its currency to drop by 6% to 10%…but that would probably cause investors to abandon China’s financial markets. It could try to dump its U.S. Treasury holdings, but…if it tried to sell them all at once, it might find no buyers at all. And urging Chinese consumers to boycott U.S. products—something that the government did in 2012 with Japanese goods—would hurt Chinese workers, since Apple, Procter & Gamble, and Caterpillar manufacture most of their goods for China’s markets locally, while McDonald’s owns just 20% of its Chinese business.
That won’t stop Beijing pursuing retaliation…But the effectiveness of such retaliation will be limited, and the costs high. China does have one advantage. Because President Xi Jinping doesn’t need to worry about elections, he doesn’t have to worry about getting thrown out of office if tariffs cause consumers pain.”
PeakTrader China does have one advantage. Because President Xi Jinping doesn’t need to worry about elections,
Well, that’s kind of a big advantage. But China also has a lot of other asymmetric levers. For example, it didn’t get a lot of notice, but this past week China started cozying up with Iran, which would effectively neuter Trump’s decision to quit the Iran nuclear deal. China also made it plain that it’s willing to walk away from its previous support of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against NK. And Pakistan needs a friend. The point is that trade wars have a way of expanding beyond simply trade.
Judging from the totally off point PeakyStupidity rants off – I suspect this is yet another topic he totally fails to comprehend. But does that stop him from babbling on? Of course not.
The fear mongers at it again/still! 2slugs: “The point is that trade wars have a way of expanding beyond simply trade.” Or not depending on outcome on ongoing negotiations.
Pgl: te funniest comment of all: “Judging from the totally off point PeakyStupidity rants off – I suspect this is yet another topic he totally fails to comprehend. But does that stop him from babbling on? Of course not.” Blaming Peaktrader for a Barrons article, and calling the article/Peaktrader off point for an article titled: The Trade War to Date
Or Baffled response: “peak, its not as if you dear leader is cozying up to the dictator in russia, an enemy of the free world. he would never do that. or cozying up to the dear leader in korea. this was a pretty stupid point on your part peaky.”
If not fear mongering their ranting. If this had been an Obama tactic the comments would have been how close to world peace we approaching under Obama’s astute leadership. It’s hilarious watching their spinning heads. 😉
One day they may even mention the Jobs Report, but I don’t expect to see any of that until after the mid-terms.
“One day they may even mention the Jobs Report, but I don’t expect to see any of that until after the mid-terms.”
you mean the jobs report that comes from the second longest recovery in history? you know, the recovery that obama created and trump has surfed on the past year? if was interesting, all you critters found reasons to degrade the obama jobs reports. even your dear leader called them a lie. then all of a sudden, you are touting them as truth? i for one am happy that the jobs report continues to support the long, strong recovery that was created by obama. i just hope trump doesn’t screw up the recovery.
Baffled, how soon you forget. Most complaints were that Obama’s/the democrat recovery was too little and too slow costing millions of jobless economic injury. Trump has shown the truth of those claims, and that’s why you try so hard to ignore or denigrate Trump’s record setting improvements.
corev, calculated risk has a nice expose on economic performance. according to the metrics of kudlow, mnuchin and cohn, the obama policies have been superior to trump. and you quote “recovery was too little and too slow ” is quite simply false, except for statements by partisan hacks. obama took unemployment way down and created millions of jobs. second longest recovery on record, only exceeded by that other democrat-clinton. something both had in common? they had to fix an economy which was broken by the previous republican administration. simply the facts here corev.
2slugbaits, are you surprised Communist China would cozy up with dictators and enemies of the free world? It’s nothing new.
“are you surprised Communist China would cozy up with dictators and enemies of the free world?”
They are cozying up with Trump who certainly is THE enemy of the free world. Lord have mercy – you finally made a point!!!!
peak, its not as if you dear leader is cozying up to the dictator in russia, an enemy of the free world. he would never do that. or cozying up to the dear leader in korea. this was a pretty stupid point on your part peaky.
Baffling, you didn’t disprove my statement, but you did prove you’re illogical.
And, Trump is your “dear leader” too. Get over it.
nothing illogical peak trader. your dear leader has cozied up to a russian dictator and korean killer, both enemies of the free world. am i wrong? perhaps it is best that you go back to the country you were born in. i don’t think trump wants your kind here in the states-you know, those not born in america. fascinating how an immigrant like yourself holds those anti-immigrant feelings. kind of like stephen miller and his immigrant grandparents.
The rest of the signers of the JPCOA are abiding. What is wrong with neutering Trump’s ill-advised reneging on the Iran nuke deal? While India will attempt to buy Iran oil with rupees! Iran seems to oppose the Saudis (OPEC) selling another million barrels a day to fund USAF aerial refueling inhumane bombing over Yemen!
I’m sitting here reading “The Watchmen” comic, eating popcorn, and Dr Pepper 10. Now I need an aspirin to help my Dr Pepper 10 go down.
Uuuuuuuhh, is this a trick question??
I had a ton of links I wanted to share, can we consider this a “free for all” thread like some blogs do?? First one is some comedy relief I think we all need after this horrific week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqW5ynwFxas
Some tech news related to China (state initiated hacking)
https://www.wired.com/story/china-hacks-against-united-states/
I doubt if Menzie would let me get away with putting up the Wikileaks links related to “ICE’ Enforcement Agents information. So I will just put the more generic WaPo post up and let your conscience take you where ever it goes (try not to be too strict on yourself)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/22/wikileaks-publishes-identities-and-information-about-ice-employees-amid-intensifying-anger/
Glenn Thrush article on Trump’s plan to “overhaul” the government. Guess who gets hurt??? You only get ONE guess
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/trump-government-overhaul-safety-net.html
Here is one about asylum seekers I thought Menzie might particularly enjoy:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaaq0883/tab-pdf
And one of Krugman’s columns on the consequences of a possible trade war. Well written and well explained, but surprisingly mild conclusion coming from Krugman:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/opinion/thinking-about-a-trade-war-very-wonkish.html
Something tells me I’m forgetting a link that I wanted to share here, if it pops into my brain I’ll put it in this thread later
Some of the “Classic” moments from the Orange Menace. FYI there are some “dirty” words said in these vids, but they are said only by Trump and his “conservative” supporters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb9fXwTWhB4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVhfbxodqWY
Some clips from Trump’s biggest supporters. The same people who take cheap shots at the New York Times and Washington Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owTUL3RQkYQ
Wow man, the drummer for Pantera died. Unbelievable. Phil Anselmo outlives both Dimebag Darrell AND Vinnie Paul. Anyone take that bet straightup around 1997?? Man I let out A LOT of anger alone in my apartment playing air guitar and air-drums to “Far Beyond Driven” drinking rotgut baijiu around 2006. 2 of the 3 real power players of the band—-gone. What a life.
A cover of a Black Sabbath song they did. One of their softer songs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWChhdIgT6Q
Dear Dr. Chinn,
I would be curious about your thoughts of a proposed $30 billion bailout of U.S. farm groups that is being proposed by the Trump Administration? It seems to me, these folks are all about the free market until it is their voters that are on the line. https://www.agweb.com/article/trump-administration-considering-tariff-payments-to-farmers/
Thank you, your posts are much appreciated.
Samuel
The EU is targeting U.S. exports such as peanut butter, bourbon, orange juice, steel, and agricultural products.
I’m having a PNB sandwich with bourbon and OJ for lunch as I watch the World Cup. Winning!
When Mexico beats Korea – will Russia have enough beer?
“CCC can borrow up to $30 billion from the Treasury Department and extend that money to farm groups. If U.S. farmers see orders from China plummet because both countries create new layers of tariffs on imports, the White House previously said it wants to set up an assistance program for the U.S. ag sector, including the livestock industry, row crop producers and fruits and vegetable farmers impacted.”
China imposes a tariff and Team Trump robs US taxpayers $30 billion to bail out these farmers. Wouldn’t it just be easier to skip all of this and for all of us to just write checks directly to China. I’m sure Jared and Ivanka would still collect their commission checks!
Menzie asks: “Are we winning yet?” My answer: “Dunno, are negotiations closed, yet?” Until they close, we will not know the final trade balance estimates.
As for Menzie’s prior focus on soybeans, the last few days prices have risen. China’s tariff is 25% and futures the prices has adjusted accordingly some where north of the total tariff impact as would be expected for a product that has multiple non/lower-tariff customers.
The more interesting question is how many soybeans have actually been moved at these lower prices? Are or more importantly how many farmers and granary operators actually selling into today’s market? Except during actual harvest time most have sell/store options waiting for higher prices. Or phrased in futures market terms are they taking long/for delivery positions on these contracts? Or is the soybean futures churn mostly short term positions only contract traders betting/gambling on price changes?
For soybeans the better question may be who is the winners and losers? That too for the longer term is still to be determined. If you understand my comment above you can tell who I think they may be for the short term. Gamblers anonymous anyone?
The futures market is not for the timid!
Since China is hitting BMW SUVs exported from the US with counter tariffs, The German car makers have to think about moving the production out of the US,
both expanding in China and Germany.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/gewinnwarnung-die-erfolgsfahrt-von-daimler-chef-zetsche-ist-zu-ende/22719330.html?ticket=ST-5526290-v2YM1Yj5nz0wgRv3i9FI-ap2
This would require fewer workers in the US
Agent Trump to Comrade Putin: Mission Accomplished
2slugbaits, you’ve been watching too much propaganda.
Time to leave your bubble.
Yea – your bubble is well paid by Trump’s minions!
I would think that the proper look is longer-term in nature. If things remain as shown above, I would say it’s a “loss”. On the other hand, if we were to get closer to free trade than we were before any “trade war”, it could be seen as a “win”. I do wonder how many people see it the same way. In any case, I certainly wouldn’t think anyone doing a serious analysis would even attempt to make a conclusion right now. Doing so seems far too short-sided and emotional to seriously assess “wins”/“losses” now. I suppose it makes for decent clickbait, however.
rtd You might have a point if we had good reason to believe that deep down Trump was committed to free trade and his threatened trade war was just a negotiating tactic to achieve freer trade. But everything we know about Trump suggests that he does not believe in free trade. He’s been clear on that going back at least 30 years and long before he entered politics. And his base certainly doesn’t want free trade. He campaigned on building a big beautiful wall, which is hardly consistent with a belief in the free mobility of capital and labor. He campaigned against TPP. He promised to tear up NAFTA. He told us that winning a trade war was easy, which tells us that Trump understands neither international trade nor war. His worldview was shaped by the zero sum environment in the NYC real estate market, which is hardly the kind of background that would train one’s mind to understand international trade. There’s nothing in his history or his campaign promises to his base that would justify our pretending that he is really committed to free trade. He just isn’t, despite PeakTrader’s often repeated delusions.
2slugbaits,
Even if your personal assumptions regarding Trump’s objective were to be true, how does that change how we assess winners/losers now? I don’t think such an analysis can be performed in earnest today. My point remains irrespective of Trump’s intentions. Moreover, I never stated anything regarding Trump’s intentions.
rtd I’m not understanding you. If Trump’s intention is anything other than to use the threat of a trade war as a way to negotiate for freer trade, then how can the result be anything other than a loss? If I’m wrong about Trump’s intentions and we end up with freer trade as a result of his threatening a trade war, then I would count that as a win…assuming we didn’t have to suffer a prolonged trade war in order to get there. But if we end up with higher tariffs all around and less free trade, then I don’t see any other way to score that than as a loss. I’m curious what you would consider a win.
BTW, one other piece of evidence that tells us Trump doesn’t understand international trade. One of his justifications for killing TPP was that he believed multiple bilateral agreements were superior to a large multilateral agreement. This is simply wrong. The reasons why it is wrong are too complicated to explain here, but almost any textbook on international trade will have a chapter explaining why multilateral agreements are better than bilateral agreements.
2Slugbaits,
I’ll try to be clearer but in honesty, the following is only restating what I’ve already said here… we don’t know now and there’s no way to know now. This uncertainty applies to two things…
1)Trump’s ‘true’ motives
2) any trade war ‘win’/‘loss’
Menzie’s post is simply clickbait and does not pose a serious or meaningful question at this moment.
You ask “I’m curious what you would consider a win“ so I will restate my initial comment within this post:
“If things remain as shown above, I would say it’s a “loss”. On the other hand, if we were to get closer to free trade than we were before any “trade war”, it could be seen as a “win”.“
rtd As to Trump’s motives, we have a couple of pieces of evidence. The first piece is his long history of opposing free trade. He’s been on the record for over 30 years. The second piece of evidence is what he promised his base during the campaign. I suppose he could always surprise us, but the smart money is on his wanting a trade war.
I’m glad you think that if things remain “as is” then this would be a loss. I agree. But you have to ask yourself what could force things to change, and here the economic literature is sobering. This gets too geeky for a deep explanation, but if you’re familiar with the geometry of “offer curves” and “contract curves” as used in both welfare economics and international trade economics, then you’ll know that once a trading partner moves off the “contract curve” and onto a different point along the “offer curve” there is nothing that guarantees movement back onto the “contract curve.” In other words, not only are free trade agreements fragile, but once you move away from those free trade agreements its very hard to return. So while we may not know for certain how things will work out, we have a lot of history and a lot of economic theory that tells us how things are very likely going to turn out. And it’s not a pretty tale.
As to Trump’s motives, i don’t think much of your assertions are particularly relevant:
1) in his pre-politician days, he was a talker for publicity’s sake. We know Trump was a marketer much more than anything else.
2) he lies more than most politicians (crazy to think)
3) he claims he’s pro-free trade now (didn’t he claim to be a democrat in the past? – people can change)
4) recall I never made any claims regarding if Trump wanted a trade war or not. But, if as you claim, he does desire a trade war, that doesn’t preclude a result of freer-than-before trade.
5) good luck at reconciling any of the above today
6) the point still remains that none of this allows us to decide ‘winners’/‘losers’ today although it does provide plentiful partisan clickbait
I am aware of some of the economic literature regarding these issues (admittedly these were not a huge focus at all in graduate school and have not been a keen interest since) but today’s global economies and particularly when considering the US, is one where we should not allow a Lucas-type Critique to stray too far.
The fact that this post has as many comments as it does only validates my claim that the value in Menzie’s post is page views and page views alone (this goes along with his emotional posts, biases, approach of quantity over quality, and general Trump-like behavior). No one can seriously claim Menzie’s post contains a well-thought-out question or analysis… it’s the econblogosphere equivalent of Breitbart or Media Matters.
I recall in 1991 when an ‘analyst’ at ESPN questioned whether the veteran Lakers winning game1 of the NBA Finals was too much of an obstacle for the relatively inexperienced Bulls to overcome. Of which I’m certain provided ‘great’ barroom dialogue.
So that Menzie doesn’t extrapolate to make even more unfounded assumptions to fit his emotions, I also recall announcers stating at halftime of Super Bowl XLVIII that you can never count out the Denver Broncos when Peyton Manning is behind center. The Broncos were on the undesired side of 22-0 at intermission and it never really got better with the final score being 43-8.
Menzie, keep the piling on the posts!!! hahaha
RTD, I agree. It’s much too early to see how this plays out. The usual fear mongers are clueless of what is going on with negotiations. Or, for that matter, how our “Free Trade” agreements have significant portions that remain on the “Fair Trade” side, and why added negotiations are needed to move those “fair” portions closer to a “Free” trade environment.
For economists, they seem unable to think. If we were actually in “Free Trade” Agreements why would there be a need to negotiate, but all they seem to respond with is Trump’s claims of imbalances due to trade barriers are wrong. Their major arguments center on the imbalances are actually lower while ignoring the trade barrier issue. You’d think economists would realize in a perfect Free Trading relationship the trade barriers are supposedly non-existent.
CoRev The usual fear mongers are clueless of what is going on with negotiations.
Really? Look at the table from Foreign Policy that Menzie posted. Looks to me like us “clueless” fear mongers have a pretty good idea what’s going on with negotiations. Basically negotiations have broken down and a trade war is escalating. What do you see happening?
If we were actually in “Free Trade” Agreements why would there be a need to negotiate
Because some free trade agreements tend to hurt industries and workers in particular sectors that are at a comparative disadvantage. And Trump promised voters in those industries that he would protect them from foreign competition. Free trade means some workers and industries will suffer significant losses. That’s one reason why free trade agreements are fragile.
they seem to respond with is Trump’s claims of imbalances due to trade barriers are wrong
No, that’s not the claim at all. Some of Trump’s claims are wrong. Some of Trump’s claims are irrelevant; e.g., his obsession over a bilateral goods trade deficit with this or that country. And some of Trump’s claims have merit; e.g., stealing intellectual property. But the main problem we have with Trump is that he seems to think tariffs and trade barriers are the way to fix those problems. If you’re upset about the threat of intellectual property, then appeal to the WTO. Throwing up tariffs only compounds the problem. If you’re worried about bilateral trade imbalances, then buy an econ textbook and learn why that “problem” is irrelevant. If you’re worried about large current account deficits, then don’t cut taxes and run large structural budget deficits. If you’re worried about keeping a “warm” industrial base, then directly subsidize excess capacity. The point is that in every case tariffs either make the situation worse or at (at best) yields what economists call a “second best” approach.
Or, for that matter, how our “Free Trade” agreements have significant portions that remain on the “Fair Trade” side, and why added negotiations are needed to move those “fair” portions closer to a “Free” trade environment.
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It’s just a jumble of words.
Ding, din ding, 2slugs found the clue bat: “Because some free trade agreements tend to hurt industries and workers in particular sectors that are at a comparative disadvantage. And Trump promised voters in those industries that he would protect them from foreign competition. Free trade means some workers and industries will suffer significant losses. That’s one reason why free trade agreements are fragile. ”
So what would you propose be done? Turn the other cheek and… Oh, that wrong approach for an analogy for many here. So how would you propose for negotiations? Our partners have little incentive to address change their advantages.
2slugs admits: “I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. It’s just a jumble of words.” That is because you are confused over the differences between Free and Fair trade.
Another point, trade is primarily bilateral. International trade agreements can be bilateral or with multiple nations. Either way, disparities between trading partners are also usually bilateral regardless of the number of signatories to the agreement. The final point re: trade agreements, conditions change within and between partners necessitating renegotiating the agreement. Trump is pointing out those differences cause by some of those changes.
CoRev You asked what should be done about workers who are hurt by free trade. I believe I already answered that several times, but I’m happy to oblige once more. Since the gains from free trade exceed the losses of those hurt by free trade, the obvious answer is to tax some of the excess gains going to the winners and provide the losers with various kinds of compensation, such as retraining, relocation expenses, expanded unemployment benefits, assistance with job searches, etc. Feel free to add to the list.
As to what should be done to remedy “unfair” trade practices, that depends on the particular problem. In general nothing should be done. For example, if China wants to subsidize its exports to the US, we should thank them for the charitable contribution to our welfare. If the problem is piracy of intellectual property, the WTO provides a venue for that. If the concern is maintaining a warm base for national security reasons, then the government should subsidize excess capacity. As I said before, imposing tariffs is pretty much the worst and most self-destructive response and doesn’t really do anything to fix the underlying problem. Tariffs are never the right answer.
Another point, trade is primarily bilateral. International trade agreements can be bilateral or with multiple nations.
This is just nonsense. For a long time the US was a strongly protectionist country. Then between the World Wars the US tried to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements, without much success. The reason GATT was created in 1947 was precisely because of the difficulty in negotiating multiple bilateral trade agreements following World War I. The reality is that you can never just negotiate with one other country because there are other countries who can then strategically react to what both sides of the bilateral trade. There’s a fairly deep literature on this and I’m not aware of any international trade economist who believes bilateral trade negotiations are better than multilateral trade agreements. This has been a settled issue for at least 70 years.
you are confused over the differences between Free and Fair trade.
I understand the difference quite well. I’m the one who had to write several posts explaining the difference, remember? What you don’t understand is that policies that put “fair trade” practices above “free trade” practices always reduce economic welfare (with a few textbook exceptions).
2 slugs, your answers are not new nor not already available. Workers have many path to improve conditions when injured by job loss. Trump has already proposed a solution for farmers.
You are too enamored of Econ. theory versus reality. Trade, whether under an agreement or open, is essentially a bilateral contract. It is competition that incentivizes competitors to change their approaches to those contracts. Strangely this is ongoing whether they are made under an agreement or open environment.
You have also had to explain several times your arcane understanding of Fair and Free trade. My explanation for my misusing the terms is my old mind is faster than my elderly fingers typing. Y’all may not like or believe that message, but that’s what happening on this end.
CoRev your answers are not new nor not already available. Workers have many path to improve conditions when injured by job loss.
Huh? You’re the one who asked would should be done, remember? I’ll quote you: “So what would you propose be done? Turn the other cheek…” I also invited you to add to the my list of recommendations, which you didn’t. Many of the things you say are already available are paid for by the people who are most vulnerable. For example, unemployment insurance is paid for by employees; i.e., the incidence of the tax falls on employees. I’m suggesting that expanded unemployment insurance for those who are hurt by foreign trade should be funded by those who gain from foreign trade. That’s kind of an important difference. Same with retraining and relocation. Since you didn’t like my list and you weren’t able to add to it, I can only conclude that what you really want is to reap the economic benefits of free trade while enjoying the political benefits of aggrieved downscale voters who lose out because of trade. That’s pretty cynical.
Trump has already proposed a solution for farmers.
Yes. Are you proud of that “solution”? Trump creates a problem and then tells taxpayers to clean up his mess.
Trade, whether under an agreement or open, is essentially a bilateral contract.
We’re not talking about bilateral contracts between businesses. Bilateral and multilateral trade agreements provide the rules and standards that set the boundaries on those private contracts. Multilateral trade agreements are better…especially if you’re a large country that can influence prices. Seriously, quit embarrassing yourself and take the time to read some basic econ textbooks. You’re making a fool of yourself.
2slugs, your premise is wrong! My was you added nothing new to what is already available. Moreover: “…paid for by the people who are most vulnerable. For example, unemployment insurance is paid for by employees; i.e., the incidence of the tax falls on employees.” Unemployment insurance is paid by the business and not the employees. Your 2nd failure. Your approach is to add another tax on the business to pay for a theoretical harm from profit from a more fair free trade agreement. In typical democratic fashion increasing taxes on businesses is a better, new or different solution. More taxes, more regulations, and more restrictions on productive competitive businesses is always better.
Trump’s solution to improve trade fairness is in two parts, long term and short. You have none, just status quo.
You still don’t understand trade versus trade theory. Nearly all trade is bilateral contracts between businesses. They are driven by competitive forces. That’s why the EU wants trade with Iran. EU companies were trading with Iran while they were restricted by the Nuclear Agreement.
You were doing just fine until your arrogance drove you to hubris-ville again. Sad really.
CoRev Unemployment insurance is paid by the business and not the employees.
Please pay attention to what I wrote. The “impact” of the insurance is paid by the employer, but the “incidence” is paid by the worker. I’ve pointed out the difference between “impact” and “incidence” many times as part of your continuing education. So while this might be “jargon”, you don’t have an excuse because I’ve brought it to your attention many times in the past. Please try to retain stuff. Accountants worry about the impact of a tax; economists worry about the incidence of the tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
CoRev Your approach is to add another tax on the business to pay for a theoretical harm from profit from a more fair free trade agreement.
Ugh. The point is that even after paying some of the windfall gain in taxes, the winners are still better off than they would be if not offering to share in those gains results in less free trade because aggrieved voters (i.e., rustbelt Trump voters) turn protectionist. You seem to belong to the “cut off your nose to spite your face” school of economics. And remember, you’re the one who earlier expressed such heartfelt concern for the fate of workers who lost out due to free trade. Apparently your sympathy doesn’t go so far as wanting to do something about it. And I wasn’t talking about taxes on business; I actually had in mind higher income taxes on elites who have captured much of the gain from free trade.
You still don’t understand trade versus trade theory. Nearly all trade is bilateral contracts between businesses.
In case you didn’t notice, I’m the one who pointed out that trade contracts was between businesses. I am the one who brought up the difference between trade contracts and trade agreements. I was telling you that bilateral trade agreements are not the same as bilateral trade contracts between businesses. I thought I was pretty clear about the difference, but evidently not. Trade agreements are between governments and set the rules and parameters for actual trade contracts. When people are talking about bilateral versus multilateral trade agreements, they are talking about agreements that set rules, standards, parameters, appeals, etc. They are not talking about contracts between BMW and Ford.
Please, please, please take the time to learn a little economics. This is supposed to be an econ blog, so if you want to participate in a meaningful way you really need to step back and learn some econ. You can’t go through life just bullshitting your way through. That stuff might work down at the VFW hall with your drinking buddies, but you’re embarrassing yourself here. If for no other reason, you need to learn some of the basics for the sake of Menzie’s eyes. It can’t be good for him if he’s continually rolling his eyes in disbelief with some of the stuff you write.
“It’s much too early to see how this plays out. The usual fear mongers are clueless of what is going on with negotiations.”
Trump is also clueless with respect to what is going on with this stuff but permit me to have Luke Skywalker comment on your first sentence here:
“This is not going to go the way you think!”
https://bgr.com/2017/12/15/star-wars-the-last-jedi-review/
Pgl, troll. Add some value.
RTD, from my comments my position is clear: “if we were to get closer to free trade than we were before any “trade war”, it could be seen as a “win”.” I think we have already achieved some minor positives.
Then Trump is a lot smarter than his haters want to admit,and this could all be a ploy to pull the trade issue rug just before the mid-terms and declare a victory. We’ll see.
What further surprises me is we are all discussing agreements without any of us familiar with their internal details. These multi-lateral agreements include clauses tailored for individual nations’ advantages. Does anyone know how conditions have changed for them? Does anyone believe that agreement changes are not needed? If these advantages are still existing how would you leverage change?
Let me provide some examples for consideration. Has energy production stayed the same? Has GMO seed proven unsafe? Has electricity generation prices changed effecting refined metals cost?. Do any of these changes effect current trade agreements?
Not bad for a President who came to office with less than 50% of the popular vote. Could this one man take down the entire post-war international trading system? Or just inflict a lot of economic damage, especially on the USA?
So far the message is rather clear. Americans are no longer trustworthy. Contracts with Americans are turning out to be worthless. This is the new American brand. It is interesting to contemplate the extent of the damage done to US reputation capital.
But then this is also the country that invented the concepts of ‘democratic gerrymandering’, ‘democratic ethnic cleansing’ and ‘top down violent regime change’ so none of this should surprise anybody.
Erik, so, Canadian propaganda is worse than the U.S..
It’s not surprising.
Blaming the Canadians for the horrific behavior of the Trump White House? You are a lot like Trump – blame others for your own pathetic behavior.
Trump finally has the great team he wants.
The Canadian economic mess was well before Trump.
Yea – Stephen Miller is Trump’s man. Almost as racist as you are!
Pgl, you only look at skin color and ignore culture, character, etc..
I guess, you feel based on skin color, some need to be compensated and some need to be punished.
You need to get over labeling people by skin color – people are more diverse than you can imagine.
What exactly is the point of this trade war?
Unemployment has been 4.1% or less for the past 8 months and is likely to go lower.
We have 10 million more jobs now than at the previous peak before the Great Recession.
Corporate profits are at record highs.
Is the objective to increase inflation and reduce international trade? That seems to be the only outcome.
The point is simple – Trump’s buddies are exploiting the stock market as Trump is giving them early tips on his next move. This White House is incredibly corrupt.
Is that what those wackos at CNN told you today?
I don’t watch CNN. But we know you tune into every word from Fox and Friends as this is where you get your marching orders for the day.
Paul, your full-time employment data is way off and many jobs don’t pay well. Maintaining a core steel and aluminum industry is not unreasonable. Wanting a level playing field, or reducing trade barriers, is not unreasonable either. I’m sure, you want more good jobs, and more R&D investment, in the future. The objective is to get these petty backstabbing politicians to accept free trade and open markets.
“your full-time employment data is way off ”
Please mansplain to us why what he wrote is “way off”. Of course you could provide the transcript to the latest Fox and Friends and we can read your sources for ourselves!
The U.S. created only five million full-time jobs, since the economy peaked in 2007. You need 1 to 1 1/2 million jobs per year just to keep up with population growth. Weak job growth, since the recession, supports weak GDP growth, since the “recovery.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-usa-since-1990/#0
The number of people working part time for economic reasons is now 100,000 more than in January 2008. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12032194
Total employment is 148.66 million so the increase of part time jobs is less than a tenth of a percent. Way off you say?
We asked you to reply to what Paul wrote. You didn’t. You just babble the same old rants.
BTW – you accused me of being anti-white above. FYI lying POS, I’m a white guy. But unlike you I am not afraid of people who are Hispanic or Asian or black.
Paul, when would you propose we enter into negotiations? When we are within a strong economy or weak?
Negotiations are fine at any time. Tariffs and trade wars are bad at all times.
Unfortunately, Trump has proven to be a very inept negotiator so all he does is impose tariffs and start trade wars. He cannot even make a deal with Canada!
When have trade wars been successful for us?
Traditionally both the US & UK have been free trade countries.
Now both make troubles, not only Trump in t he US but Brexit as well
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/brexit-bmw-warnt-grossbritannien-dann-muessen-wir-alternativplaene-entwickeln-a-1214577.html
And just to be clear, The German Auto industry would be fine with the Trump proposal to eleminate all Auto tariffs, light Sedans AND SUVs.
“disparity between the 2.5% tariff the U.S. currently charges for car imports and the 10% duty imposed by Europe. The U.S. imposes a 25% tariff on imports of light trucks, vs. Europe’s 10% rate for those vehicles.”
We could then built the SUVs some better place
Wow,, I’ve kept a peripheral eye on the German football team for a long time, and I don’t remember them ever sucking a__ this bad. And Argentina?? They look more absentee than Hillary Clinton on a Wisconsin to Michigan “I’m With Me” campaign bus. And what’s the deal with the German coach with his tongue out of his mouth all the time?? Is he secretly a lizard person?? What’s going on there??
They’re saying that things in the Argentina locker room have turned horrific and that the manager is playing the wrong players on the field. Players argued with the manager and now they want a new manager. Sounds like the Trump White House.
https://sports.yahoo.com/argentina-players-reportedly-attempted-mutiny-asked-coach-jorge-sampaolis-ousting-133242114.html
Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, has resigned from the Republican Party, and registered as an independent.
Schmidt, on his decision to leave: “This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party.”
Conservative columnist George Will has similarly resigned from the Republican Party and urged voters to vote Democratic in the 2018 mid-term elections.
Of course, these two will be instantly branded by Trump supporters as “RINO’s,” or Republicans In Name Only. I would submit that the true RINO’s are those who refuse to repudiate someone whom Schmidt accurately characterizes as a lawless, vile, corrupt, mean and cruel president, and I agree with his strong recommendation to vote Democratic in November.
Jeffery, neither party change is unexpected, nor is your recommendation. Now what? Shall we list the next set of voter changes after the mid-terms?
For anyone who wants to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in my opinion the choices is clear: Vote Democratic this November.
I just saw the latter part of this, and it’s one of the best documentaries or shows on basketball I have ever seen (link below). There were certain coaches who saw the natural athletic gifts of African American athletes before others did (or maybe stated more accurately, recruited them, and played them on the field/court when society didn’t like seeing black athletes “riding herd” over and being dominant over white athletes). Don Haskins was one of those guys. Barry Switzer was one of those guys. Jerry Tarkanian was one of those guys. Billy Tubbs was one of those guys looking around the economically poor district high schools for black athletes (yes, clear into the early ’80s there was still some bias to white athletes in recruiting, which, ironically, was self-defeating behavior).
I had never realized Al McGuire was one of those guys, popping his head around the corner to look for athletes in predominantly black neighborhoods in the ’70s. Which explains A LOT (although not all) about Al McGuire’s winning percentage at Marquette. The show is called “Untucked”
http://www.espn.com/30for30/film?page=untucked
Turkey Election is tomorrow. Erdogan wants firm grip on power until 2028 with no Parliament. Many countries are undertaking this task of National Revival in a “Sure” hand.
As Americans we have a lot of romantic regard to and nostalgic affection for railroads.
I think the contributions of Chinese people to the American railroads has not been recognized as much it should be, and I hope that will be rectified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvoMRdyVy0M
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/150-years-ago-chinese-railroad-workers-staged-era-s-largest-n774901
Our place at Donner Lake is about 1/2 mile from the RR tracks. I like to hear the rumble of the diesel engines laboring up west. The east bound trains make braking squeals and fan cooling noise from the dynamic braking. Back in the day when my legs were worth a damn, we would ride our bikes through the snow sheds to the top of the pass. Then have fun blasting down old Hwy 40 to home.
There is a video of the last steam train from Sacramento to Truckee on youtube.
I have memories of the cab forward Malets blasting through town carrying tanks for the Korean war. At speed they shook the ground.
Been there my friend—multiple times. I’m guessing your experience was slightly more fun than mine (although generally I enjoyed it, because the scenery and adrenaline rush going downhill). I took it by semi-truck on I-80. Bet you heard some “jake brakes” going through there in your day. One of the very few places I would use mine. I always thought “jake brakes” a tad philistine and crude (and part of the reason semi-truck drivers have bad reputation), but there you must use them or you’ll be smelling your own brake pads burning on the way back down.
We spent a couple of days, Fri & Sat, at Donner to escape the heat in Hotter Than Hell (AKA Cool). Not yet full on vacation season up there yet. I did notice that the trucks seemed to be avoiding “Jakeing”. Also the infamous, wake board, boats were not blasting by with their stupid music over amped. Also they seemed to be staying further from the dock which avoids wave damage. Year before last the water agency let the lake level rise to almost the bottom of the dock deck and the wake board boats damaged the dock. Wake boats must die!!! The guys on the wake boards did not seem to be having as much fun as the water skiiers. They were going slower and not doing tricks or jumps.
Another stunt you can do is just gear down (in the semis). I did that (probably most of the time) the only problem is you have macho owner operator types, that like to go down at 90+ mph. and they follow each other too close, and if they don’t change lanes etc. it raises the risks of being rear-ended when you gear down. It’s always kind of dicey there, but really after your first run down it’s very manageable. Most drivers their first time down get pretty white-knuckled on that steering wheel though. Unbelievable views. It’s always more scenic in the western USA and you can see some weird things (in the skyline and the horizon, and more “oddball” weather events). There are a few other places (again mostly western states) that rival Donner Pass scenery wise, but not many. Just viewing it from a truck driver’s perspective Oregon and Washington state were my favorites. If you’re driving in a car then it becomes a different ball game and you might choose others. Most semi-drivers probably like the southeast best, but I never got too much into that redneck shit. Dixie-flag on the grill, chain connected to the wallet. etc. Most semi-drivers are good guys deep-down but it’s a backwards culture.
As usual we are seeing both PeakDishonesty and CoRev go “I’m rubber you’re glue” but you just have to love when PeakDishonesty says he has provided data I have ignored and yet no source as usual. Try this for the serial liar known as PeakDishonesty:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-10-steel-producing-countries-in-the-world.html
“Steel Companies in the US produced 78.92 million metric tons of the global production of crude steel in 2015. Production of steel in the US goes back to 1629 when the first plant was set up in Massachusetts. Today, the US is home to over 100 steel production plants in localized regions all over the country. Most of the production is in the Pittsburg-Youngstown with several industries in its districts. Most of the locally produced steel in the US is consumed by the automobile industries in Detroit and Michigan. Major steel producing companies in the US are U.S. Steel, Nucor, and AK Steel. The industry employs over 142,000 people.”
PeakDihonesty is trying to claim that the U.S. steel sector is about to disappear. What a laughably stupid claim. Yes China produces a lot but they also consume a lot. Facts Peaky as opposed to your incessant lies. Next time you want to tell us that you have provided sources – actually DO IT!
https://marketrealist.com/2017/09/top-10-steel-importers-is-us-steel-industry-justified
Steel consumption by country. Of course net imports = consumption – production.
Note how easy it is to produce honest data that adds up when you know even the most basic economics, which of course PeakStupidity cannot be bothered with.
Let’s also look at an index of steel prices to be compllete:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU101
It looks to me that they have risen. I get it – PeakStupidity is standing on his head when he reads this chart.
Pgl, note your data is for 2015. This: https://www.statista.com/statistics/209343/steel-production-in-the-us/
says 2016 production was 78.5 down from 2015 and after Trump was elected
says 2017 production was 82 metric tons.
Pgl is trying to claim that the U.S. steel sector was doing just fine at the end of the Obama administration. When under Obama’s recovery the steel industry never achieved pre-recession production levels. What a laughably stupid claim.
Pgl, see how easy it is to refute and ridicule? Why not just refute by showing your numbers?
CoRev I believe pgl was showing wholesale prices for iron and steel. You’re showing metric tons of production. See the difference? You sound like an old fashioned Soviet planner who would obsess over how many tons of steel should be produced with each Five Year Plan. And if you think steel is doing so well under Trump, then what’s the justification for him wanting a tariff?
2slugs, this is to what I was responding: ““Steel Companies in the US produced 78.92 million metric tons of the global production of crude steel in 2015.” Quoted right in his original comment.
I provide data – you and PeakyDishonesty just bitch. Down 78.5??? What 78.5 pennies? If you are going to spin for Wilbur Ross – at least learn to write complete sentences.
BTW – the FRED link on prices was up to date. Did you not notice, steel prices have been rising. FYI – that alone undermines every dishonest piece of garbage you and Peaky can gin up.
I would explain it to you in terms of demand and supply but then that would be way over your head.
Pgl, see my response above to 2slugs. Or better still go read your original comment. It might clear your confused and fevered mind.
Yea – steel production in 2016 was SLIGHTLY below where it was in 2015. This was still FAR beyond the non-existent US steel sector PeakDishonesty tried to be portray. If you think your quibbling justifies what PeakDishonesty is saying, you are even dumber than he is.
Pgl, and steel production was above the 2015 figure you provided. I guess using your logic that rise is solely die to Trump?
“Pgl is trying to claim that the U.S. steel sector was doing just fine at the end of the Obama administration.”
I never made such a statement. All I am saying is that the US steel sector still exists. Peaky was off on his usual hyperbole as to how it was non-existent.
Hey CoRev – you either failed to grasp the conversation (again) or you are just doing your usual lying.
CoRev asks for updated data and I provide. Just checked the 10-K filing for AK Steel. Back in 2015, its operating profits were less than $87 million. Over the past two years – its operating profits exceeded $220 million per year.
Of course CoRev was either too lazy or too stupid to check. Or maybe he did check but was too dishonest to admit this.
Hey pgl – you either failed to grasp the conversation (again) or you are just doing your usual lying. I never made a statement about operating profits. There’s that fevered mind again, or is it another of your lies?
Gee, this pgl style of comment is really easy. No value added and no thought needed for creating them.
You are doing a lot of I’m rubber, you’re glued of late. BORING!
Imposing new limits on U.S. firms operating in China, and taking actions that limit their sales in China. Apple and GM sell a lot of made-in-China phones and cars that wouldn’t be impacted by tariffs. I do though wish there was a bit more rigor in separating out the impact of Chinese action on the profits of U.S. companies from the impact of Chinese action on the U.S. economy: if China makes it harder for Starbucks to make coffee in China (maybe using Swiss beans? for tax purposes) or McDonalds to make hamburgers in China, there won’t be much impact on the overall U.S. economy. Chinese made hamburgers aren’t the same as U.S. made planes. In 2017 U.S.firms earned around $13 billion (according to the U.S. data) in China on around $200 billion in sales.*
Brad Setser notes how easy it would be for China to win this trade war:
https://www.cfr.org/blog/what-would-happen-if-china-started-selling-its-treasury-portfolio
The headline is what would happen if China decided to sell its U.S. government bonds and let its currency devalue. Then again he also mocks the insane rants from PeakyBoo by noting Peaky’s worst nightmare:
Imposing new limits on U.S. firms operating in China, and taking actions that limit their sales in China. Apple and GM sell a lot of made-in-China phones and cars that wouldn’t be impacted by tariffs. I do though wish there was a bit more rigor in separating out the impact of Chinese action on the profits of U.S. companies from the impact of Chinese action on the U.S. economy: if China makes it harder for Starbucks to make coffee in China (maybe using Swiss beans? for tax purposes) or McDonalds to make hamburgers in China, there won’t be much impact on the overall U.S. economy. Chinese made hamburgers aren’t the same as U.S. made planes. In 2017 U.S.firms earned around $13 billion (according to the U.S. data) in China on around $200 billion in sales.*
At the risk of sounding like an Alex Jones listener/fan, I have suspected these existed for awhile now. If for no other reason than it’s very “doable” and that reality often follows (obviously in a staggered and delayed fashion) science fiction literature. Now, I know this is going to sound paranoid and “out there”, but I have even heard birds around my home, that had a “mechanical” or “commercial sound” to them. What does that mean “commercial sound”?? Well, you know how when you watch some 3-D movies you can tell just by looking its’s a computer generated image—well, imagine that kind of thing—only it’s audio based. The “intuition” that the sound is artificial comes from the audio sound of the bird call itself. Do I know 100% this has happened near my home?? NO, I do not, but I trust my gut, and 60% I believe this may have occurred. Some bird calls I have heard have been quite odd (“too cliche” sounding)—and on top of that—there’s a large Air Force base not terribly far from here, so……. it’s “conceivable”.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2152027/china-takes-surveillance-new-heights-flock-robotic-doves-do-they
Pgl calls other racists, but displays the same tendencies as racists. Sarah Sanders was booted out of a leftist restaurant, people who don’t want Confederate history to disappear are called racists, opposing views at college campuses are met with violence, Hollywood leftists want to kill Trump and his family, the mainstream media is almost totally biased, leftists want to impeach Trump for no reason, etc.. It’s intolerance, discrimination, fear, and hate. Leftists would be putting up signs in front of their businesses like “We don’t serve Uncle Toms,” but that would be too obvious.
Leftists carry a lot of baggage and want to shut out debate.
They’re also prominent in sexism.
“They’re also prominent in sexism.”
I guess you think Trump is a leftist. After all his view of women is that they are nothing more than people one should “grab by the pu$$#”!
His lawyer Rudy G. must also be a leftist as the baggage he carries includes 3 ex-wives he cheated on.
Next we will see PeakPathetic pushing Jonah (momma’s boy) Goldberg’s book “Liberal Facism”!
I don’t just call you a racist. Your own words prove you are one. BTW I grew up in Atlanta so do not lecture me about southern history.
Now if you think Sarah Sanders is an Uncle Tom – we all have to laugh. BTW – I saw what she tried to order. No wonder she is so fat. Red Hen did her favor by telling her to eat somewhere else. Maybe a salad would be more appropriate than that lard she likes to eat.
PeakDishonesty is not the 1st to accuse China of adopting predatory pricing with respect to steel. Apparently some outfit called Eurofer did so back in 2009 per this alert:
https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2009/03/corporate-strategy–finance-eu-competition–tra4__/files/corporate-strategy–finance-eu-competition–trad__/fileattachment/2713csfclientalerteuroferv4.pdf
“Due on the 24 February, the report is said to contain information on various subsidy schemes operating in China. Going beyond the publicly available statistics and data and presenting unverifiable information contributed by Chinese sources, Eurofer is attempting to demonstrate Chinese steel pricing policy as “predatory” and alert the European Commission of its disastrous impact on the European industry. The Chinese government have always claimed that its low prices are based on the competitiveness of its steel production.”
Got that? Unverifiable information! Exactly what PeakDishonesty does on a daily basis!
If you think Wilbur Ross is bad – check out this Eurofer which is the mouth piece for European steel:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-election-count-parliament-vote/turkeys-ruling-ak-party-at-43-8-percent-with-80-5-percent-of-parliamentary-votes-counted-tv-idUSKBN1JK0WZ
Of course China exports a lot more steel to Europe than it does to the US. I guess PeakSocialist has comrades in those European socialist states as they use anti-competitive measures to bail out their failing companies too!
Pgl, even liberal economists, including Navarro, say: “Tariffs on steel, aluminum are long overdue.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/7700C95C-1D92-11E8-AFF8-7834937E5386
You’re just arguing with yourself and losing 🙂
You had to Google to find some “economist” none of us ever heard of? Oh wow – PeakDishonesty has turned to the socialist EPI. I guess next you will be supporting Cynthia Nixon!
I love this claim:
“Six smelters shut down, and only two of the five remaining smelters are operating at full capacity, despite an increase in U.S. demand for primary aluminum. ”
It seems even US aluminum producers have established smelter affiliates in Iceland as the cost of electricity is much lower there. These tariffs are not changing this at all. I thought everyone knew this by now. But not PeakStupidity’s new guru. Does Peaky know? Maybe he does but of course we know he is not honest enough to admit this.
Hey Peaky – I bet you failed to follow the links in your own story:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-more-american-jobs-than-they-help-2018-03-02
Trump’s tariffs will cause more US job losses than it creates jobs in the protected sectors. C’mon Peaky – either you are too dumb to read your own links or you want Americans to lose jobs.
Well, since Menzie has gone from superhuman prof blog posting pace to normal dude blog pace, here’s some clickbait for entertainment:
https://xkcd.com/2001/
Phil Hartman doing his Reagan bit on the Contra-Sandinistas situation is still a classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wfPlgKFh8
Carson, doing the semi-famous Reagan comedy bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evt6As72m4
Looks like there will be huge international U.S. soybean purchasing soon, in part, because seasons are reversed in U.S. and South America:
https://www.google.com/amp/m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2152109/why-china-cant-count-brazil-fill-soybean-gap-its-trade%3famp=1
More Googling? You misrepresent the story. Try READING just the title:
‘Why China can’t count on Brazil to fill the soybean gap in its trade battle with the US’
That does not say China will be buying even more US production as Chinese consumers may switch to other products. Of course you might have realized that had you not dropped out of freshman economics during the 1st week.
Of course this undermines a lot of the trash Menzie has had to endure from your comrade CoRev. Of course neither you nor CoRev know enough economics to realize why.
Pgl, you ignorance again caused you to totally misread another article.
Menzie’s latest post is an eloquent take down of your latest insanity. Check it out. And you will not need to go Googling!
Pgl, you really really don’t understand this INTERNATIONAL commodity issue at all do you?
“Exhibit A” on why I don’t have, never have had, and never will have, ANY respect for John Taylor, who similar to his Reaganite buddy David Stockman, is an out-and-out fraud:
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/06/25/1529901000000/The-John-Taylor-backed–stablecoin–that-s-backed-by–um–stability/
I have been thinking….. Ok?
Above I see: ” Could this one man [Trump] take down the entire post-war international trading system?”
Unlikely unless it is going down anyway.
I find appeals to goodness of any “post-war [whatever US empire imposed blither word] system [or order/blither word]” rather dull.
Suppose the ‘system’ or ‘order’ imposes a very legal regime that is not just?
In scripture common from Japan to Rome the ideal is for “just” more than “legitimate”.
I suggest that when we use the terms Fair and Free Trade we use common definitions. These are what i have found:
fair trade
NOUN
trade between companies in developed countries and producers in developing countries in which fair prices are paid to the producers.
“supporters believe that fair trade is making a significant positive impact in the world” · “fair trade coffee”
free trade
[ˈˌfrē ˈtrād]
NOUN
international trade left to its natural course without tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.
“an agreement intended to introduce free trade in marine products” · “a free trade
I tried to highlight what I thought were the important differences. Fair = developing countries and Free = existing agreements.
Free trade can still have fairness issues between nations’ agreements, and even if fair when first negotiated conditions can and will change. Oil production and the use of Genetically Modified organism (GMO) seeds and following or not laws/regulations trying to effect Climate Change are clear examples. I included oil production and Climate Change as examples on how they perturb costs for electric power generation, a critical component on competitive positions.
CoRev: Free trade has a well-defined meaning amongst economist; it is a lack of a tariffs and nontariff barriers. In this sense “Free Trade Agreement” is a misnomer; a better term (used by the WTO) is “Preferential Trade Agreements”.
On the other hand, “Fair Trade” is a normative phrase. The definition you use is merely one of very many. As long as we have a different definition of “fair” (as in fair prices), then we will have different definitions of “fair trade”. Even if you said “fair” prices equalled free market prices, that would allow for monopoly or monopsony pricing, and the presence of externalities. If you said fair prices were those delivered by a competitive market, then you’d have to be sure you knew the first and second welfare theorems…to be sure you understood what you were saying.
Like I say, if you want to debate international trade intelligently, it pays to learn the topic systematically, using a textbook; then you can critique in a systematic way.
My favorite is Harmless Coconut Water which brags about how its Fair Trade means high prices. Yea – twice the price of Zico Coconut Water which used to be the highest priced brand. Fair to the company selling the stuff but a total ripoff for anyone dumb enough to buy their products.
Pgl, another economist who doesn’t understand the definition of Fair Trade. Your comment is exemplary of why we should at least agree on what it means.
Menzie we agree on the core meaning of Free Trade, but you failed to agree or actually define Fair Trade. Like I say, if you want to debate international trade intelligently, it pays to learn the topic systematically and a common defintion/understanding for the core terms, using a textbook; then you can critique in a systematic way.
When I research the definition of Free Trade i come up with a common theme: a social program aimed at improving the lives of the poor in developing countries by offering better terms to producers and helping them to organize. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.3.217, Similar definitions can be found in Wiki, Investopedia (where I found mine), in the Business Dictionary, ad even in Economics papers
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.3.217 The Economics of Fair Trade “Abstract
Fair Trade is a labeling initiative aimed at improving the lives of the poor in developing countries by offering better terms to producers and helping them to organize. …”
I find it difficult to understand your reticence in defining Free Trade for the purposes of clarifying the discussion here. Since you can not define it I assume your discussion is not systematic.
When you say: “using a textbook; then you can critique in a systematic way.” I have and they are probably more appropriate for Foreign policy and Business Management issues than economics.
Economics is not the center of a larger portion of your readers and a huge percentage of the populace. Free Trade also is not Economics centered.
DAMMIT!!!! My mind for got to tell my fingers Free and (Fair) Trade also are not Economics centered.
there is a reason you continue to mistake free and fair trade definitions and arguments, corev. it has to do with a confused mind.
“you failed to agree or actually define Fair Trade”.
I think Menzie was clear. Economists do not use ambiguous terms like “fair trade” for a reason. But if you insist – please mansplain to us what you think is the precise meaning of “fair trade”.
Pgl, I have prided my recommended definition, twice now. Economists don’t agree with it because it is more a business and foreign policy issue.
prided = provided my ole mind finger meld is working less and less.
CoRev Just this weekend Trump used the words “fair trade” in the sense of “leveling the playing field” or “reciprocity.” In other words, he’s of the opinion that if some country imposes a 10% tariff on US goods, then our putting a 10% tariff on imports from that country somehow resets things back to even. That’s the kind of stuff you hear from people who don’t know anything about international economics.
The definition of “fair trade” that you cited refers to the “fair trade movement”, as I explained before. It’s about paying non-monopsony wages to farmers in developing countries. My local coffee shop offers “fair trade” coffee for a (moderately) higher price. I don’t think it requires superhuman effort to distinguish “fair trade’ in that context from “fair trade” as used by industry/union spokespersons or in a Trump rally to MAGA hat festooned rustbelt workers.
This doesn’t get enough attention, but as bad as tariffs are, there are worse ways to inhibit free trade. For example, a quota system (voluntary or involuntary) is worse than a tariff. And this worries me because Trump is likely to resort to quotas if (or more likely when) his current approach of threatening tariffs goes down in flames.
The word “fair” and Donald Trump should never be used in the same sentence.
2slugs, what was your complaint about Trump’s comment? ” Just this weekend Trump used the words “fair trade” in the sense of “leveling the playing field” or “reciprocity.” We’ve already established that Free Trade is not really without some Trade Barriers, as were negotiated in the specific agreements. Conditions change – agreed? Now that we are in a strong economy isn’t it time to re-negotiate some of the barriers due to those changes?
Our quotas V your quotas and our tariffs V your tariffs is what is being negotiated.
BTW China is not on the list of nations with which we have trade agreements. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
How does that impact them in terms of Free or Fair Trade? Or are we in an open competitive environment?
CoRev: The United States and China are signatories to the World Trade Organization.
Yup! But we still have ZEROformal trade agreements.
That’s your solution? You are proposing every trade dispute, at all levels, between us be taken to the WTO for speedy resolution?
For all the complaints about Trump’s methods, your solution is so untimely as to require potential subsidies for each industry trading with China. How many are not?
CoRev: WTO/GATT is not a formal agreement?
CoRev we still have ZEROformal trade agreements.
Oh my.
your solution is so untimely as to require potential subsidies for each industry trading with China.
Just for kicks, do you mind telling us why you think every trade barrier (real or perceived) “requires” some kind of retaliatory action on our part? Is this another version of “leveling the playing field”?
Menzie & 2slugs</b? c'mon now stay with the logic: "BTW China is not on the list of nations with which we have trade agreements. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements.”
Menzie & 2slugs c’mon now stay with the logic: “BTW China is not on the list of nations with which we have FREE trade agreements. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements.”
Note: corrected highlight and added FREE to clarify to what agreements I* was referencing.
CoRev Since you’re so eager to lay out definitions, try this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
Sound familiar?
2slugs asks if mercantilism sound familiar? Read about it, but it is barely applicable to today’s trade practices with perhaps the exception of China and several other dictator lead nations.
How did you think it applies?
We have free trade with only 20 nations which do not include the UK??? Lord CoRev – this list is not what you think it means. But nice try there!
Trump trade war has induced Harley Davidson to shift production of their motor bikes offshore:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/harley-davidson-to-shift-motorbike-production-to-counter-tariffs
I wonder how PeakDishonesty and CoRev is going to spin this development as us “winning”. Oh wait – Wilbur Ross and Jared were short selling this American corporation. You bet they are winning.
harley davidson, the great indonesian motorcycle!
All of you listen to Trump bragging about job creation since he took office.
The average increase in monthly payroll employment has been 184,000.
But from 2012 to 2016 it average a 204,000 monthly increases.
That is right, employment gains were larger under Obama than they have been under Trump.
Has he been bragging about the Stock Market?
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/06/update-for-fun-stock-market-as.html
Spencer, as we get closer to full employment, fewer jobs are created.
We had diminishing job growth the past few years, which is expected, but should’ve had much stronger job growth in the early years of the “recovery,” particularly given the huge job losses in the recession.
We’ve actually had weak job growth, along with weak GDP growth, in the Obama “recovery.”
“as we get closer to full employment”.
This is a total flip flop from all your other rants. No one ever accused you of consistency!
peaky complains about the weakness of the obama recovery, and as that recovery continues to progress to “full employment” all of a sudden he completely changes his opinion on the performance. face it peaky, your assessment of the obama recovery and the trump miracle are really full of political hackery. obama presided over the second longest (and will probably become the longest) recovery on record. this is a fact. if trump employment growth is being limited by “full employment”, then please thank obama for getting us into that position. interesting how trump is being limited while providing fiscal stimulus and the greatest tax cut in history. perhaps the timing of that policy is flawed?
Spencer different starting point, don’cha think?
Yes, different starting points.
I choose the last 5 years under Obama so I would compare the data during an economic expansion and avoid the distortions of the recession, recovery in the early Obama years.
So I used different starting points to make the comparison meaningful.
so trump has managed to make china and the eu allies in trade
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/trade-war-europe-china-work-together-as-us-threatens-with-new-duties.html
the question really becomes, how much damage do we permit trump to do to the us and world economy before it is all said and done? as usual, this is going to be another republican mess a democrat will have to come in and clean up. just like bush jr.
No worries – we have Russia on our side!!!
Just for the record, dear valuable gentlemen, may I kindly remind you that China owns the U.S.
最好的祝福